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

Comment author: drethelin 17 March 2017 06:24:28AM *  1 point [-]

Are there legal barriers to renting property you own only to people in your ingroup? I feel like there must be, especially in California.

Also I second the housing co-op idea, there are a bunch of them here and they seem to work pretty well for the people who live there.

A possibly useful hack for this is kickstarter/tinder type thing, where people can propose buildings, and people announce how much money they would be willing to pay to own what percentage of, a specific place on the market where the next step is only triggered if enough people sign up with a sufficient amount of money that it's worth actually looking into pooling money and purchasing it.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 17 March 2017 08:11:50PM *  1 point [-]

I don't know about California, but here in Michigan at least I believe it is legal so long as the building is a "shared dwelling space". If it consists of separate apartments, then no you're not allowed to discriminate like that. (Note: Not a lawyer, there may be subtleties I'm missing. Just stating this as a potentially useful starting point.)

Comment author: Alicorn 17 March 2017 01:46:56AM 19 points [-]

If you like this idea but have nothing much to say please comment under this comment so there can be a record of interested parties.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 17 March 2017 08:07:45PM 0 points [-]

I'm an interested party except for the whole "bay area" part. :P

Comment author: Sniffnoy 17 March 2017 04:32:14AM 6 points [-]

Thought: You might want to look at existing cooperative houses for possible models of how to run things. Here in Ann Arbor we have a number of them -- although since most of them are part of a central organization (the Inter-Cooperative Council) which takes care of a lot of things, some of that might not generalize very well. Still, there are plenty of other ones not part of such organizations.

NASCO may have a number of relevant resources here -- both in terms of, what other co-ops are there to look at, and also more direct resources on how to run a co-op (sample bylaws, lease documents, etc.). I think they have lots of stuff for helping out new co-ops, people trying to start co-ops, etc.

Unfortunately they seem to be focused on student cooperatives, but it looks like as long as your co-op is near a college campus it can join, whether it's for students or not, and that condition can likely be satisfied. But that's for existing co-ops anyway; not sure how it works if you want their help starting a new one. But I'm pretty sure they have some way of helping with that? Maybe not NASCO itself? Apparently co-ops which are "development service member" help with this? I really don't know much about this. But this might make a good starting point.

There does appear to be one NASCO co-op in the bay area, called "Cooperative Roots". Or you could talk to the Berkeley co-ops (not a NASCO member), though from what I know about them I'm not sure how great a model they would be (I hear they're very centrally run, with individual houses having little autonomy).

Also thought: Some of the ICC houses in Ann Arbor were originally frat houses before the ICC bought them. That might be one way to get houses. Unfortunately the ones I've seen that were obtained this way generally didn't have layouts that were really optimized to be a good co-living spaces, for whatever reason, but such a house will likely still be better for such than houses not really intended for co-living at all.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 20 December 2016 07:42:01AM 18 points [-]

The bucket diagrams don't feel to me like the right diagrams to draw. I would be drawing causal diagrams (of aliefs); in the first example, something like "spelled oshun wrong -> I can't write -> I can't be a writer." Once I notice that I feel like these arrows are there I can then ask myself whether they're really there and how I could falsify that hypothesis, etc.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 20 December 2016 08:07:46PM 1 point [-]

Agreed -- this sort of "bucket error" can be generalized to "invisible uninspected background assumption". But those don't necessarily need to be biconditionals.

Comment author: Raemon 07 December 2016 05:42:40PM *  1 point [-]

Fair. Created a separate meetup. (Note that the location is still to be determined, but we have a backup location if we're unable to find a better one, which we'll announce a few days before if need be)

Comment author: Sniffnoy 07 December 2016 09:47:55PM 0 points [-]

Thank you!

Comment author: Raemon 06 December 2016 06:28:08PM 0 points [-]

Sorry about that, thanks.

Details for the megameetup are here:

https://www.facebook.com/events/187105845029955/

Comment author: Sniffnoy 07 December 2016 07:11:33AM *  0 points [-]

This is still very easily missed, seeing as you've only put it in a reply to my comment and not in the main body of the post. Indeed, someone might just not click at all because they have no idea that the Solstice might be associated with a megameetup (it hasn't always been) and they're not interested in the Solstice (I don't intend to go to the Solstice). IMO it would be best for it to be a separately-listed meetup so that people who aren't intersted in the Solstice will still see "NY megameetup" in their sidebar.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 01 December 2016 05:59:42AM 1 point [-]

Interesting. Some time ago I was planning on writing some things on how to have an argument well, but I found a lot of it was already covered by Eliezer in "37 ways words can be wrong". I think this covers a lot of the rest of it! Things like "Spot your interlocutor points so you can get to the heart of the matter; you can always unspot them later if they turn out to be more crucial than you realized."

One thing I've tried sometimes is actively proposing reasons for my interlocutor's beliefs when they don't volunteer any, and seeing if they agree with any; unfortunately this doesn't seem to have gone well when I've done it. (Maybe because the tone of "and I have a counterargument prepared for each one!" was apparent and came off as a bit too hostile. :P ) Not sure that any real conclusions can be drawn from my failures there though.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 01 December 2016 05:36:07AM 0 points [-]

I gather from SSC there's also an associated megameetup that day / next day. You might want to note this here, not sure how anyone would find it out in general (I only did by asking).

Comment author: btrettel 30 November 2016 04:31:24PM 3 points [-]

Some sort of emoticon could work, like what Facebook does.

Personally, I find the lack of feedback from an upvote or downvote to be discouraging. I understand that many people don't want to take the time to provide a quick comment, but personally I think that's silly as a 10 second comment could help a lot in many cases. If there is a possibility for a 1 second feedback method to allow a little more information than up or down, I think it's worth trying.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 30 November 2016 08:27:26PM 2 points [-]

I'm reminded of Slashdot. Not that you necessarily want to copy that, but that's some preexisting work in that direction.

Comment author: nshepperd 27 November 2016 07:06:01PM 14 points [-]

I think you're right that wherever we go next needs to be a clear schelling point. But I disagree on some details.

  1. I do think it's important to have someone clearly "running the place". A BDFL, if you like.

  2. Please no. The comments on SSC are for me a case study in exactly why we don't want to discuss politics.

  3. Something like reddit/hn involving humans posting links seems ok. Such a thing would still be subject to moderation. "Auto-aggregation" would be bad however.

  4. Sure. But if you want to replace the karma system, be sure to replace it with something better, not worse. SatvikBeri's suggestions below seem reasonable. The focus should be on maintaining high standards and certainly not encouraging growth in new users at any cost.

  5. I don't believe that the basilisk is the primary reason for LW's brand rust. As I see it, we squandered our "capital outlay" of readers interested in actually learning rationality (which we obtained due to the site initially being nothing but the sequences) by doing essentially nothing about a large influx of new users interested only in "debating philosophy" who do not even read the sequences (Eternal November). I, personally, have almost completely stopped commenting since quite a while, because doing so is no longer rewarding.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 30 November 2016 08:39:31AM *  11 points [-]

doing essentially nothing about a large influx of new users interested only in "debating philosophy" who do not even read the sequences (Eternal November).

This is important. One of the great things about LW is/was the "LW consensus", so that we don't constantly have to spend time rehashing the basics. (I dunno that I agree with everything in the "LW consensus", but then, I don't think anyone entirely did except Eliezer himself. When I say "the basics", I mean, I guess, a more universally agreed-on stripped down core of it.) Someone shows up saying "But what if nothing is real?", we don't have to debate them. That's the sort of thing it's useful to just downvote (or otherwise discourage, if we're making a new system), no matter how nicely it may be said, because no productive discussion can come of it. People complained about how people would say "read the sequences", but seriously, it saved a lot of trouble.

There were occasional interesting and original objections to the basics. I can't find it now but there was an interesting series of posts responding to this post of mine on Savage's theorem; this response argued for the proposition that no, we shouldn't use probability (something that others had often asserted, but with much less reason). It is indeed possible to come up with intelligent objections to what we consider the basics here. But most of the objections that came up were just unoriginal and uninformed, and could, in fact, correctly be answered with "read the sequences".

View more: Next