The way the US handled racism in the 20st century is a core reason why there are much more isolated neighborhoods in the US than in Europe. Americans who can't directly discriminate against Black people found that if you just make housing in a neighborhood expensive enough, you can keep the neighborhood relatively free from Black neighbors.

While you might not convince people to switch to being YIMBY, the structures of racism are still a key reason why those neighborhoods are setup the way they are setup and this is part of what "character of the neighborhood" meant over the last century.

That depends very much on the local politics. If you are in California "This is structural racism, you can overcome your structural racism by becoming YIMBY" might be useful. If you make the same pitch in Texas it's likely less successful. 

aesthetic and the lack of fights over parking spots and the vibes and the fact there are much fewer poor (or homeless) people around, unlike in the poor-filled city proper

In addition to poor and homeless, it's also Black. Structural racism is alive and well in the United States on that front. 

Interesting, that will likely make it hard for Anthropic to match what OpenAI will be able to accomplish in 2026.

Why would you beam the energy to earth? One aspect of the moon is that the far side of it is already the perfect environment for cooling datacenters. Then you do your model training on the moon. 

The disable special theme button should be bigger, I didn't see it at first and it was not obvious to me that I could just switch it off with one click. 

The key problem is that this is a process metric and not an outcome metric. With rationality we do care about outcome and it's not clear that the process metric actually relates to them. 

With cognitive bias training there's the risk that it just makes it easier to rationalize whatever you want to believe for other reasons. As far as I understand, CFAR did experiment in the beginning about teaching cognitive biases and then decided against it because they believed it wouldn't actually help with what they are trying to accomplish.

From academia we also don't seem to have studies that show that you can improve people's real decision making by teaching them ccognitive biases. 

I have an open question about how many cards there are and how they are size that doesn't seem to be addressed in your description. I think shortly speaking about the physicality about what you are selling would  be a good idea.

A lot has to do with how what it means to be left/right has changed.

Rationalists usually don't like following authorities. That was left-wing coded in late 00s/early 2010s and is more right-wing coded today.

I valued Glenn Greenwald political views two decades ago and I value them today. One all the issues that are most important to him, Glenn still holds the same views today as two decades ago. However, while Glenn was seen as clearly left-wing back then, he's frequently seen as right-wing today. 

Example 4: Magnus Carlsen. Being good at chess is one thing. Being able to play 3 games against 3 people while blindfolded is a different thing. 

It isn't. To be good at chess your brain needs to learn to present game states in your head. To be good you need to read ahead many moves. That's the same skill you need to play blindfolded. People who never tried to play blindfolded or are not good overestimate the amount of skill it takes. Some people who try to play blindfolded are surprised about how easy it is. 

I would expect that explaining a complex situation of business politics to current o3-Pro and asking it "from a game theoretic perspective" what are smart and maybe unconventional moves I can make in this situation, is already going to give let you make political moves that are much stronger than what many people currently do.

Most of the time, humans are not really trying to use intelligence to make optimal well thought out choices. You already get a huge leg up, by actually trying to use intelligence to optimize all the choices you make.