Rejecting the strategy of garnering attention by means of domestic terrorism is an understandable heuristic, but it's worth noting that the consensus seems to be that Industrial Society and Its Future stands as a serious piece of political philosophy worth engaging with despite its origins.
The consensus among whom? How do you know that the consensus exists?
If you take for example the Obama administration before the first Trump administration, it had the claim of the president being able to order an assassination of an US citizen away from the battlefield without any need to justify that assassination in a court of law. That was an unprecedented move to expand executive power.
The steady trend is that these kinds of moves to expand executive power are regularly made. Each administration takes the powers that their predecessors won for granted and seeks to expand them.
I think it's a bad framing to treat "unprecedented moves to expand executive power" and "natural extension of existing trends" as the same mental bucket. The two are not the same. A key problem in the US is that the existing trends over the last two decades have been bad when it comes to expanding executive power.
When it comes to the whole question of corruption and the rule of law, the way Robert Moses build a lot of New York was pretty corrupt and not really honoring the spirit of the rule of law. The Chinese had a lot of economic growth at the backdrop of a lot of corruption. Part of what strong rule of law along with no
Scott Bessent bullying Big Pharma companies with tariffs threats to get them to radically reduce the prices they charge with most-favored-nation drug pricing in the United States is pretty unusual. It's a huge change from corporate lobbyists just getting what they want.
Of course, I know for many Trump supporters, the whole point is that he's destroying a bunch of institutions that need destroying. I am actually pretty sympathetic to the idea that if you want a better government, you need to tear down the old one quickly. There might be enough differences of values here that there's not much common ground to be had
I doubt that's the case. If you look at what Marty Makary is doing at the FDA with actions like allowing Bayesian statistics for drug trials and generally creating incentives in the bureaucracy for faster drug approval, there's a lot of common ground.
The NIH making moves in favor of animal rights over which PETA writes "Champagne corks are popping at PETA thanks to NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s landmark decision that will spare animals, help humans, and bring science into the modern era. Bhattacharya is also serious about the replication crisis and improving incentives for researchers in ways that's
While the Trump administration did try to reduce NIH funding, congress still passed a budget with unchanged NIH budget so, overall FDA and NIH seem to be currently run nearer to rationalists values than the institutions previously ran.
Of course, there are also plenty of other areas where policy is substantially worse but if you see nothing that you like it's likely because of biased news sources.
If you look at top chess players, they can tell you all the moves that were played in a huge amount of historical chess matches. However, they way they get there is not by putting all moves through Anki cards or doing something that would look to a layperson like memorizing. It's more that for them going through the moves of a game is like reading a highly memorable story with a lot of drama where each move has a lot of meaning. Their brains see so much meaning in the individual moves that they are remembered easily.
I think a lot of times rote memorization is recommended because people don't see a way to order the information in a way that's actually meaningful.
1When militaries consider the president to be illegitime and bad for the country, historically they frequently create military coups.
In some previous discussions of far-UVC, on LessWrong the idea was to let the far-UVC light be focused on the space above people's heads so that you clear a lot of viruses in the air while not directly going on people's skin. Aerolamp on the other hand seems to advocate to place the lamps in a way where they directly shine on people's skin.
The FAQ of the website seems to lack a question on the impact on the skin mircobiome and especially that of the face as it's exposed the most.
If someone deploys a lamp in a way that put them constantly under the affect of direct far-UVC light on the face, doing before/after skin microbiome testing for the face might be a good idea.
In breathwork, there's holotropic breathing where people try to achieve LSD-like states by hyperventilating. While LSD-like states are beneficial for some cognitive tasks, they are not beneficial for most of the tasks we care about for daily productivity and probably detrimental for them.
ChatGPT suggests that low blood CO2 leads to respiratory alkalosis. Blood ph goes up. You get cerebral vasoconstriction, lower intracranial pressure. Hemoglobin binds to oxygen more strongly, leading to tissues getting less oxygen. There are some processes like the kidneys dumping bicarbonate to get the ph down again.
Besides that, you have CO2 receptors that get less activity which will reduce breathing rate and have a bunch of different physiologically effect on different tissue.
If I do this, I’m not buying the parts until I confirm nobody leaves a comment just demolishing the central thesis, I would probably wait until spring as opening my windows seems like a big important step to having low ambient CO2[7] but would be pretty miserable for me while there’s still snow outside.
In Sweden a common setup is called FTX, a balanced supply-and-exhaust system with heat recovery, that exchanges air with the outside without needing to open windows. Swedish regulation set a minimum outdoor-air flow roughly 0.35 L per second per square meter of floor area.
If you do care about reducing CO2 indoors, that kind of technology is likely what you want, maybe with an execution that above their government mandated minimums.
When it comes for over-the-counter pain killers like paracetamol, ibuprofen or aspirin there's a dynamic of it not being advised to go over the recommended amount but you can do either paracetamol + ibuprofen or paracetamol + aspirin for added pain relief.
The kind of opioids where more is helpful seem to be need a doctor to prescribe them and are probably not for self dosing them to remove all the pain via the more dakka principle.
The general sense is that there's no evidence that 2g is doing more than 1g, so it's not that more of a painkiller always produces a stronger effect.
Just take more if you want a stronger effect, the More Dakka way does not seem a good heuristic for painkillers in general.
The biggest problem is not one of technology, but that we don't really know how to train people "recognizing & adjusting for cognitive biases" in a way that actually translates into making better real life decisions.