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

Comment author: gjm 20 March 2017 03:12:04PM 0 points [-]

But you probably won't understand what I'm talking about for another eight years, ten months.

What do you expect to happen in January 2026, and why? (And why then?)

Also, are you the same person[1] as the "Z. M. Davis" you are replying to?

[1] Adopting the usual rather broad notion of "same person".

Comment author: Lumifer 20 March 2017 03:22:20PM *  4 points [-]

I think the current-day ZMD is talking to his past self (8 years and 10 months from the replied-to post).

Comment author: Lumifer 20 March 2017 03:20:41PM *  1 point [-]

What interesting ideas do you find here? This looks like a ranty of-course-it's-clear-in-the-rearview-mirror "wisdom" to me.

Comment author: moridinamael 20 March 2017 03:09:47PM 2 points [-]

What is the steelmanned, not-nonsensical interpretation of the phrase "democratize AI"?

Comment author: Lumifer 20 March 2017 03:17:03PM 1 point [-]

Why do you think one exists?

Comment author: Viliam 20 March 2017 10:09:54AM *  0 points [-]

It would probably be reasonable to pay a lawyer for providing a definite answer and a list of legal strategies.

I mean, my first reaction after reading about the Fair Housing Act was "nah, that cannot really be a problem, I am sure there are dozen simple ways how to circumvent this". But then the second thought was "...and this is probably the same thing those people in 1960s (and later) who didn't want black people in their neighborhood were thinking too... so there were probably already decades of legal battles with various strategies and counter-strategies, and it would be foolish to just do five minutes of armchair reasoning and pretend that I know better than all those people who did it for a job, and whose profits depended on it."

(An example of a simple strategy I imagined: Could all people interested in living there create a cooperative enterprise, buy the whole area as a company, and then sell or rent it to their members? Because while you are in the company mode, it seems legal to buy "all or nothing"; and when selling or renting to the members, you simply won't advertise the fact that you are selling or renting. -- Sounds reasonable to me, and I don't see how this would be a problem... other than that someone probably already tried this to create a white-only neighborhood, and I don't know what happened afterwards.)

Comment author: Lumifer 20 March 2017 02:33:49PM 1 point [-]

There is also that thing that the US is now more of a regulatory state and less of a place with the rule of law.

Comment author: username2 19 March 2017 05:38:44AM 0 points [-]

I was being quite serious. When given a quantitative argument you responded with a grab bag of abstract objections not backed by data but vaguely supporting your original viewpoint. A natural human response designed to keep one from changing their mind, generally called rationalization. I encourage becoming aware of when this is happening and use that awareness to improve your model of the world.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 March 2017 04:19:05PM 1 point [-]

When given a quantitative argument

Numbers are not particularly magical and being quantitative doesn't imply the argument is more likely to be correct. After all, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

Comment author: evand 18 March 2017 10:22:17PM 1 point [-]

On the legality of selecting your buyers: What if you simply had a HOA (or equivelent) with high dues, that did rationalist-y things with the dues? Is that legal, and do you think it would provide a relevant selection effect?

Comment author: Lumifer 19 March 2017 01:03:36AM 2 points [-]

It will select for rich people.

Comment author: SnowSage4444 18 March 2017 05:32:59PM 0 points [-]

http://archiveofourown.org/works/10343850/chapters/22880244

Chapter two is up. Would you like to read it, or would you like to giggle about your Blossom, Bubbles, and Buttercup fantasies?

Comment author: Lumifer 19 March 2017 01:01:13AM 0 points [-]

Oh, I always choose to giggle.

Comment author: SnowSage4444 18 March 2017 03:35:51PM 0 points [-]

What situation? He had that under control. That kid's head merging with his ass? Might as well throw subtlety out the window and state it directly: JOJO'S STAND DID THAT.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 March 2017 01:00:36AM 0 points [-]

That kid's head merging with his ass?

Don't forget the non-newtonian fluid.

He had that under control

That's 'cause the Powerpuff Girls weren't there.

Comment author: SnowSage4444 18 March 2017 03:03:21PM *  0 points [-]

What?

This is JJBA, not Powerpuff Girls. You'd know this if you noticed that this story's Jojo is a good guy.

And that is justified in canon. Jonathan Joestar-Summers has a Stand, you'll see it soon.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 March 2017 03:34:02PM 1 point [-]

All I'm saying is that the Powerpuff Girls warping in have a chance to improve the situation.

Comment author: plethora 18 March 2017 10:02:23AM 0 points [-]

Yes, so you send everyone out and hide most of the beds when the inspectors come around.

This is probably not desirable for communities with children, but it's common for co-ops in places with those laws.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 March 2017 03:33:22PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, and then you end up with Ghost Ship situations...

View more: Prev | Next