You seem to think that people that are not completely satiated are automatically cranky. That doesn't match my observation.
Also you may have multiple dishes. For example we mostly start with a collaboratively prepared soup - which thereby will be the right size by construction. Later we have some snacks or sweets or fruits. First the fresh ones, later if needed packaged ones.
I don't think I need that for my argument to work. My claim is that if people get, say, less than 70% of a meal's worth of food, an appreciable fraction (say at least 30%) will get cranky.
But there is a difference between having an amount appropriate to avoid crankiness and more than can be eaten.
But like, there's variation in how much food people will end up eating, and at least some of that is not variation that you can predict in advance. So unless you have enough food that you routinely end up with more than can be eaten, you are going to end up with a lot of cranky people a non-trivial fraction of the time. You're not trying to peg production to the mean consumption, but (e.g.) to the 99th percentile of consumption.
That calories are used as social lubricant irks me a lot. I understand why it was so in the past, but we live in a world filled to the brim with food, do we really need tens of thousands of calories at any social gathering?
The answer is obiously not, indeed it would be beneficial to lower the amount circulating... But as Lumifer spotted and wannabe rationalists often overlook, what appears as waste and irrationality is actually a situation optimized for status.
Ignoring status is almost always a bad idea, BUT: we can always treat it as just another contraint.
Given that we need to optimize for status and waste reduction, what could we do?
These are just from a less than five minute brainstorming session, I'm sure someone invested in this would come up with much more interesting and creative ideas.
I don't think this is really a status thing, more a "don't be a dick to your guests" thing. Many people get cranky if they are hungry, and putting 30+ cranky people together in a room is going to be a recipe for unpleasantness.
This write-up is about my most recent exercise: Do a Non Gender-Conforming Thing
I don't really think this is spending idiosyncrasy credits... but maybe we hang out in different social circles.
I don't like this idea, but people, please do not downvote Daniel just because you disagree. Downvote thumb is not for disagreements, it's for comments that don't add anything to the discussion.
I assume at least some of the downvotes are from Eugene sockpuppets (he tends to downvote any suggestions that would make it harder to do his trolling).
The above-mentioned researchers are skeptical in different ways. Andrew Ng thinks that human-level AI is ridiculously far away, and that trying to predict the future more than 5 years out is useless. Yann LeCun and Yoshua Bengio believe that advanced AI is far from imminent, but approve of people thinking about long-term AI safety.
Okay, but surely it’s still important to think now about the eventual consequences of AI. - Absolutely. We ought to be talking about these things.
+1 To go even further, I would add that it's unproductive to think of these researchers as being on anyone's "side". These are smart, nuanced people and rounding their comments down to a specific agenda is a recipe for misunderstanding.
So what?
(EDIT: In case you don't know, username2 is an anonymous account that anyone can use, created after some jerk changed the password to the Username account formerly used for that purpose.)
I'm well aware. It is therefore even more problematic if this account is abused --- note that there have been multiple confirmations that username2 has been used to downvote the same people that VoiceOfRa was downvoting before; in addition, VoiceOfRa has used the username2 account to start arguments with NancyLebovitz in a way that makes it look like a 3rd party is disagreeing with the decision, rather than VoiceOfRa himself. At the very least, it is better if everyone is aware of this situation, and ideally we would come up with a way to prevent such abuse.
The sudden very positive karma is extremely suspicious.
I was 85% sure at the time that username2's comment was posted. I'm now 98% sure for a variety of reasons.
I'm only 75% sure that the upvotes on "username2"/VoiceOfRa's comments above are from sockpuppets.
I've gotten sufficient evidence from support that voiceofra has been doing retributive downvoting.
Requesting a transparency report.
Regarding (if $time-$postdate then karmadisabled), I can't see a reason as to why something like that shouldn't be implemented in less than a week. Any reason why it shouldn't? I never quite got the krama drama.
Requesting a transparency report.
I think it's bad form to make costly (in terms of time) requests to moderators unless you're willing to be part of the solution. In this case, it would be good at minimum to outline exactly what you mean by a "transparency report" --- concretely, what sort of information would you like to see, and why would it be helpful? It would be even better if you were willing to volunteer to help in creating the report to the extent that the help can be utilized.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
What do you actually want to do with your life? There are careers like politics where personal connection that are gathered during university years are very important.
There are other careers such as starting a startup where personal connections with high status people might not be central and a lot of the YC founders don't have them.
Why "either or"?
Wait what? How are you supposed to meet your co-founder / early employees without connections? College is like the ideal place to meet people to start start-ups with.