I think when the target of the agreement is a spin approach or topic that should just be avoided I think the common has a already established name - a taboo.

It would also seem that it would be against the journalists integrity to participate in such in a big extent. If a laweyr would be only allowed to sue if the verdict would be "not guilty" many would not take such an ararngement to fullfill proper legal investigation. But then again if you phrase it as a plea bargain it sounds a lot better. To the extent I would view this positively is that it woudl make a person willing to share details on a hot topic issue they would not otherwise share. It better for the issue to come out even if it accompanies a spin. It would also ensure that there ared atleast somen steelmans in the discussion getting space. But by large precommitment to opinion I see as a thing wrong with press, not something to be strived for.

If someone claims something about modest numbers there is little need to differentiate between the scenario described and the utterance being evidence for that kind of scenario to hold.

To me its not that the there is only a certain amount of threat per letter you can use (where 3^^^3 tries to be efficient) but the communicative details of the threat lose signficance in the limit.

Its about how much credible threat can be conveyed in a speech bubble. And I don't think that has the form of "well that depends on how many characters the bubble can fill". One does not up their threat level by being able to say large numbers and then saying "I am going to hurt you X much". At the limit when your act would register in my mind as you credibly speaking a big threat would be hardly recognised as speaking any more. Its the point of instead of making air vibrate, you initiate supernovas to make a point.

Repeating a scenario from long ago.

You have a village that is pested by bees but also farms crops. Lets hypothetically blow it out of proprotino and say that a certain number of people die from bee-sting and a certain number die from starvation.

And lets say that bees poolinate plants and there are also non-poisonous pollinators around (such as maybe butterflies).

Somebody see a small flying insect that has yellow and black stripes in it. He argues that because it looks like a bee and bees frigging kill people we should swat it immidetly. Now considred the counterargument of someone that knows that a non-poisonouns bee mimic also lives nearby. And then let is be clear that if they swatted eveything that looked like a bee there would be singficantly less pollinators left to make the harvest yield good and related starvation deaths.

When someone is swatting a bee lookalike they are not probably thinking about the starvation deaths they are causing.

I think I left the matter in the state that just because a grouping gives information given no new information it doesn't lessen the amoutn of information that you do need. Even after not getting poisoned you need to find food. Thus everybody agrees that people should bother checking on what they are about to swat and should be about dilligent about swatting bees and should be dilligent about not swatting butterflies.

But what does not really stand for long is that somebody who summarily just swats all beelikes is being dilligent. ALL WHILE everybody agrees taht swattting is more right than not swatting. But coloration is not the only info you can deduce from bugs. But mimicry works because ti takes signficantly more cognitive effort to make those distinctions. Thus how right you use the easily avaible information doesn' tsave you from not gathering the hard to get infromation or how poorly you performed on it.

Thus the vilalge is better off educating people about the tellsigns of the mimics and that does not detract from the villages need to keep remembering that bees are poisonous

I think there's a fundamental goal conflict between "fairness" and precision. If the socially-unpopular feature is in fact predictive, then you either explicitly want a less-predictive algorithm, or you end up using other features that correlate with S strongly enough that you might as well just use S.

If you want to ensure a given distribution of S independent of classification, then include that in your prediction goals: have your cost function include a homogeneity penalty. Not that you're now pretty seriously tipping the scales against what you previously thought your classifier was predicting. Better and simpler to design and test the classifier in a straightforward way, but don't use it as the sole decision criteria.

Redlining (or more generally, deciding who gets credit) is a great example for this. If you want accurate risk assessment, you must take into account data (income, savings, industry/job stability, other kinds of debt, etc.) that correlates with ethnic averages. The problem is not that the risk classifiers are wrong, the problem is that correct risk assessments lead to unpleasant loan distributions. And the sane solution is to explicitly subsidize the risks you want to encourage for social reasons, not to lie about the risk by throwing away data.

Often in this kind of speak success is because of individual rationality and failure is because of lack of technology and communal stupidity.

"emotionally secure" is a vague term that can mean different things in different contexts. In this case I think Slider used it to mean the antonym of vulnerable.

Being emotionally "secure" means to choose your mental actions so to avoid possibility of negative emotions.

I interpret this quite in reverse. I see being emotionally secure as being able to handle negative emotions and so you do NOT have to arrange your life to "avoid [the] possibility" which generally leads to a better and more interesting life.

This is basically the idea that the state could decide to try to outlaw bitcoin mining and fight it.

Secondly you are wrong that any state has a monopoly on violence these days. There are multiple states and not none of them have a monopoly on violence. If you want to fight crypto-currencies you have to enforce laws in every country.

Emotions usually have a use. Being emotionally "secure" means to choose your mental actions so to avoid possibility of negative emotions. If you allow yourself to be emotionally vulnerable you do not sensor your emotions and their usefullness away from you. That is you allow the state of the world to influence you and do not let your self identity to hijack your mental state.

Haven't people been making contracts for a pretty long time? What is this new 'smart contract' thing and how is it unique?

in a way that's already illegal.

Someone cracking a smart contract wouldn't really mind the law.