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

Comment author: Jiro 19 September 2017 06:06:47PM 1 point [-]

What do you do to people who

1) include culture war material in their own posts, and use this to prevent anyone from criticizing them, or

2) include things in their own posts that are not culture war, but to which a cultural war reference is genuinely relevant (sometimes to the point where they are saying something that can't be properly refuted without one)?

Comment author: philh 20 September 2017 11:24:43AM 0 points [-]

Play it by ear, but my instinctive reaction is to downvote (1). Options for (2) include "downvote", "ignore", and "try to tactfully suggest that you think they've banned discussion that would be useful, and between you try to work out a solution to this problem". Maybe they'll allow someone to create a CW-allowed discussion thread for that post and then to summarise the contents of that thread, so they don't actually have to read it.

It partly depends whether their posts are attracting attention or not.

Comment author: ozymandias 15 September 2017 03:55:59PM *  13 points [-]

Thank you for making this website! It looks really good and like someplace I might want to crosspost to.

If I may make two suggestions:

(1) It doesn't seem clear whether Less Wrong 2.0 will also have a "no politics" norm, but if it doesn't I would really appreciate a "no culture war" tag which alerts the moderators to nuke discussion of race, gender, free speech on college campuses, the latest outrageous thing [insert politician here] did, etc. I think that culture war stuff is salacious enough that people love discussing it in spite of its obvious unimportance, and it would be good to have a way to dissuade that. Personally, I've tended to avoid online rationalist spaces where I can't block people who annoy me, because culture war stuff keeps coming up and when interacting with certain people I get defensive and upset and not in a good frame for discussion at all.

(2) Some inconspicuous way of putting in assorted metadata (content warnings, epistemic statuses, that sort of thing) so that interested people can look at them but they are not taking up the first 500 words of the post.

Comment author: philh 15 September 2017 05:25:16PM 7 points [-]

I would really appreciate a "no culture war" tag which alerts the moderators to nuke discussion of race, gender, free speech on college campuses, the latest outrageous thing [insert politician here] did, etc.

To clarify: you want people to be able to apply this tag to their own posts, and in posts with it applied, culture war discussion is forbidden?

I approve of this.

I also wonder if it would be worth exploring a more general approach, where submitters have some limited mod powers on their own posts.

Comment author: gbear605 15 September 2017 04:23:12AM 4 points [-]

I'd love to see achieved the goal of an active rationalist-hub and I think this might be a method that can lead to it.

Ironically, after looking at the post you made on lesserwrong that combines various Facebook posts, Eliezer unknowingly demonstrates the exact issue: "because of that thing I wrote on FB somewhere" On one of his old LW posts, he would have linked to it. Instead, the explanation is missing for those who aren't up to date on his entire FB feed.

Thanks for the work that you've put into this.

Comment author: philh 15 September 2017 12:01:24PM 8 points [-]

(As it happens, that particular post ("why you absolutely need 4 layers of conversation in order to have real progress") was un-blackholed by Alyssa Vance: https://rationalconspiracy.com/2017/01/03/four-layers-of-intellectual-conversation/)

Comment author: turchin 19 July 2017 10:16:04AM 0 points [-]

why "was briefly possible"? - Was the botnet closed?

Comment author: philh 19 July 2017 10:49:01AM 1 point [-]

They may be referring to the fact that bitcoin mining is unprofitable on most people's computers.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 11 July 2017 07:22:57AM 0 points [-]

I mean that on a 2D board, you could have a king in the corner and a queen directly adjacent above and beside it, and that would be mate.

No, unless the queen is defended by some other piece, otherwise the king could just capture it. Or am I missing something?

Comment author: philh 11 July 2017 09:21:46AM 0 points [-]

Ah, I was unclear: I meant two queens, one each above and beside.

Comment author: Thomas 10 July 2017 06:35:56AM 1 point [-]

Kindly invited to solve this.

Comment author: philh 10 July 2017 01:22:09PM 0 points [-]

I'm unlikely to try to solve it, but are you looking for an answer like "if the king starts here, you can do it with N queens placed at...", or "no matter where the pieces start, you can do it with N queens"? Are you limiting positions to those which could theoretically be achieved in a legal game of 4D chess?

(By that last one, I mean that on a 2D board, you could have a king in the corner and a queen directly adjacent above and beside it, and that would be mate. But you can't ever have that position in a legal chess game. If something like that turns out to be the optimal, would you accept it?)

Comment author: whpearson 12 June 2017 09:41:29AM 2 points [-]

I'm thinking about starting an AIrisk meetup every other tuesday in London. Anyone interested? Also if you could signal boost to other Londoners you know, that would be good.

Comment author: philh 12 June 2017 03:38:32PM *  3 points [-]

I think I'm unlikely to attend regularly, but what do you plan to do with the meetup? Lay discussion, technical discussion, attempts to make progress?

I'll link to this from the London rationalish group.

Comment author: MaryCh 09 June 2017 09:05:48AM 1 point [-]

Yvain once wrote a cute (but, to my mind, rather pointless) post about "rational poetry" or some such; but do rationalists even like poetry as a form of expression? Empirically?

If you want to say something in more detail, please leave a comment.


Comment author: philh 09 June 2017 09:53:28AM 1 point [-]

I wouldn't say I "like poetry" as such, but there are certainly poems I like; two that come to mind are If and Absolutely Nothing. Oh, and a lot of "lik the bred"s. I've sometimes listened to spoken poetry where I didn't follow the words very well but enjoyed the rhythm.

I think Brienne Yudkowsky has written about poetry.

Comment author: Thomas 31 May 2017 01:31:38PM 0 points [-]

I like your solution. Agree with you on all your points, too.

Can you do even better?

Comment author: philh 01 June 2017 11:16:14AM 1 point [-]

Well, "factors" is shorter than "divisors".

Comment author: Thomas 31 May 2017 08:46:37AM 0 points [-]

Naturals below 98 with exactly 2 divisors

first 25 naturals with exactly 2 divisors

Comment author: philh 31 May 2017 09:30:00AM 1 point [-]

Marginal: ints 2 to 98 with just 2 divisors

("ints" is only vaguely English; "just" is fine here, but debatable if you don't exclude 1.)

Also marginal: "numbers" instead of "naturals". Less precise, but there's only one sensible interpretation.

View more: Next