I agree with this policy.

I was unaware of that connotation. But I don't think it changes the equation. There's a million different ways to interpret "by all means necessary", the vast majority of which would not be construed to include violence. If this were a forum in which Satre/Malcolm X references were the norm, then that would be different. But it isn't.

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Robert Peele

Meditation: So far, we've always pretended that you only face one choice, at one point in time. But not only is there a way to apply our theory to repeated interactions with the environment — there are two!

One way is to say that at each point in time, you should apply decision theory to set of actions you can perform at that point. Now, the actual outcome depends of course not only on what you do now, but also on what you do later; but you know that you'll still use decision theory later, so you can foresee what you will do in any possible future situation, and take it into account when computing what action you should choose now.

The second way is to make a choice only once, not between the actions you can take at that point in time, but between complete plans — giant lookup tables — which specify how you will behave in any situation you might possibly face. Thus, you simply do your expected utility calculation once, and then stick with the plan you have decided on.

Which of these is the right thing to do, if you have a perfect Bayesian genie and you want steer the future in some particular direction? (Does it even make a difference which one you use?)

There's a whole literature on preference intransitivity, but really, it's not that hard to catch yourself doing it. Just pay attention to your pairwise comparisons when you're choosing among three or more options, and don't let your mind cover up its dirty little secret.

has that connotation for those unfortunate enough to be familiar with his views.

On the contrary I think many more people should be reading Roissy. People here especially. Try out his advice, experiment with it and other variants extensively. If it doesn't work no biggie try something else, but do try it in good faith. I give this advice because this is how I massively improved my own romantic life. Authors like Roissy, Mystery and Athol Kay gave me a good map to understand social and sexual dynamics that mystified me before.

Currently I say the subtitle of his blog is perfectly accurate. There are a whole lot of pretty lies out there, bad advice that is in fact anti-knowledge when it comes to sex and dating. Some of it is well meaning but obsolete, crafted to reality that no longer exists, but some is created with the full knowledge it will harm its carriers. Heartiste demolishes many of them with the sadistic glee they deserve.

I doubt the pretty lies are doing much good because we see they don't condem other things that contribute to the evils they supposedly fight. I mistrust the pretty lies as the incentives working on those who craft them are perverse. I condem the pretty lies because I see friends making stupid decisions based on them that end up wrecking their lives.

I hate the pretty lies because my belief in them was rewarded by stagnation, blindness and pain.

I wouldn't have argued this in such vivid fashion if I wasn't ticked off at how casually you dump boo lights when talking about a guy I'm pretty sure is on net doing something good.

This post reminds me of Eliezer's own complaints against Objectivism; that Ayn Rand's ingroup became increasingly selective as time went on, developing a self-reinforcing fundamentalism.

As I wrote in one of my blogs a while back, discussing another community that rejects newcomers:

"This is a part of every community. A community which cannot or will not do this is crippled and doomed, which is to say, it -is- their jobs to [teach new members their mores]. This is part of humanity; we keep dying and getting replaced, and training our replacements is a constant job. We cannot expect that people should "Just know" the right way to behave, we have to teach them that, whether they're twelve, twenty two, or eighty two"

This sounds like it's just an emotional script, a trained mental routine to feel a certain way

This makes sense. I'm just wondering whether this script (something/someone is responsible for the good/bad stuff that happens to me) is equivalent to an alief in supernatural.

it feels like they're actually thanking something, so there must be something to thank, and therefore this is evidence of a supernatural higher power

Maybe I wasn't clear. Of course I understand logically that the target of gratitude does not exist in this particular case. (On an unrelated note, I hate it when people use fancy words for simple ideas.)

I'm perfectly fine with these empty pointers/referents

The conscious me is fine with them, too. It's the subconscious me who apparently wants to believe.

This comment expands how you'd go about reprogramming someone in this way with another layer of granularity, which is certainly interesting on its own merits, but it doesn't strongly support your assertion about what it would feel like to be that someone. What makes you think this is how qualia work? Have you been performing sinister experiments in your basement? Do you have magic counterfactual-luminosity-powers?

How much does the perception that science and engineering became uncool come from bias in what gets recorded, and in particular the fact that most of us attended high school within the last decade or two?