Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Larks 09 August 2014 01:27:45AM 1 point [-]

Thanks for your work!

Comment author: Larks 05 August 2014 11:25:54PM 10 points [-]

I just donated $2,000. Keep up the good work!

Comment author: Benito 26 July 2014 06:28:03PM *  5 points [-]

If this is the case, I imagine that the story will be darn-near not understandable towards the end, when Harry finds this out.

I mean, what do you expect to happen when you expect reality to fit your expectations? When the territory starts to match to the map?!

Edit: a Added the words 'you expect' and changed nearby words to be grammatically appropriate.

Comment author: Larks 28 July 2014 09:27:46AM 4 points [-]

Well, if the "expects" operator starts acting like a "proves" operator, that sounds like Lob's theorem.

Comment author: Larks 14 July 2014 11:12:20PM *  13 points [-]

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but:

  • I asked for a payrise at work!

Finally overcame the mental excuse reel. Manager seemed supportive, but we have yet to see what will come of it.

Edit: formatting

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 12 July 2014 08:53:20PM *  2 points [-]

I found that graph unreadable, so I made a new one using ggplot.

The problem was that the colors were not distinguishable and that the legend was hard to read. This was compounded by the use of two colors for the same race, but even when ggplot chose 7 colors, they were better than the fed's 7 colors. Actually, the 4 colors before the break were distinguishable, and it was possible to identify them using the hover legend (vs the main legend), but I didn't figure that out until I was done.

Comment author: Larks 12 July 2014 11:54:20PM 0 points [-]

That's a much better graph, thanks!

Comment author: Larks 12 July 2014 02:03:18AM 1 point [-]

Quick calibration test for those who like to have opinions on the US: of the standard US racial groupings (white, black, hispanic, asian) and the overall population, which do you expect to have the highest gini ratio for income? Why?

Here is the answer, according to the US Fed

Please use rot13 for spoilers.

Comment author: Username 07 July 2014 01:23:46AM 1 point [-]

Speaking of which, Eliezer has been strangely silent throughout this whole affair.

Comment author: Larks 07 July 2014 01:55:40AM 3 points [-]

Eliezer has been silent on LW in general; I'm pretty sure it has little to do with this.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 03 July 2014 10:22:09PM *  15 points [-]

It's pretty much always a mistake to apply legal-style reasoning to moderator actions on an Internet forum, anyway. The job of moderators is to keep the forum working, not merely to follow previously published procedures. Legal rules such as nulla poena sine lege don't apply in this context. They're supposed to wing it a bit when necessary.

Comment author: Larks 07 July 2014 12:09:00AM 3 points [-]

Sure, but then they shouldn't pretend to be justified on the basis of rules that actually do no such thing. I'm happy with Eliezer's dictatorship, but it should be an epistemically honest dictatorship.

Comment author: pragmatist 03 July 2014 09:17:26PM 10 points [-]

The more specific it is, the stronger the implication that things left unmentioned are not actually verbotten.

The specific circumstance is explicitly offered as one particular example of a general policy (it's preceded by "e.g."), so I think there's a pretty strong implication that there are other things left unmentioned that are in fact verboten.

Comment author: Larks 07 July 2014 12:07:41AM 2 points [-]

The specific circumstance is explicitly offered as one particular example of a general policy

Unfortunately the origional rule was not really grammatical enough to establish a general policy. If you remove the 'e.g.', as you should from a valid sentance, all we're left with is

If we determine that you're, we reserve the right to delete those comments.

Which doesn't even vaguely hint at a general policy!

Comment author: Larks 03 July 2014 08:41:17PM 8 points [-]

The Less Wrong content deletion policy contains this clause:

Harrassment of individual users.

If we determine that you're e.g. following a particular user around and leaving insulting comments to them, we reserve the right to delete those comments. (This has happened extremely rarely.)

I don't think this really helps you. As you acknowledge, this clause does not actually imply that downvoting is harassment at all. Nor does it imply that blocking users is the appropriate response!

Indeed, the fact that explicitly mentions some crimes (leaving rude comments) and punishments (deleting comments) is probably evidence against this moderation action. If the policy had been totally non-specific, it would imply a wide degree of moderator discretion. The more specific it is, the stronger the implication that things left unmentioned are not actually verbotten.

Furthermore, consider that in the case mentioned in the policy (harassing comments) deleting them is a coherent response which addresses the underlying issue, without very much collateral damage. In this case, banning Eugine from posting does not actually prevent him from downvoting, so the objective is not achieved, but considerable collateral damage is inflicted, by ending his often interesting comments.

View more: Next