Thank you for this, I'm conducting user interviews right now and there were some suprising things in your review, as well as obviously good ideas that I would probably have missed. Organizing meetups in the field would not have occured to me, and is a good idea. 

that's still the second worst thing that's happened when running a megameetup from my perspective.

You can't just say that and not elaborate!

This is a good counter-arguement! Though I think the missing factor of a square root doesn't change the qualitative nature of natural i.e. steady-state motion. But that's not much of a defence, is it? Especially when Aristotle stuck his neck out by saying double the weight, double the speed. It is to his detriment that he didn't check.

I think this only holds if fine tunes are composable, which as far as I can tell they aren't (fine tuning on one task subtly degrades performance on a bunch of other tasks, which isn't a big deal if you fine tune a little for performance on a few tasks but does mean you probably can't take a million independently-fine-tuned models and merge them into a single super model of the same size with the same performance on all million tasks).

I don't think I've ever heard of any evidence for this being the case. 

Second most? What's the first? Linearization of a Newtonian V(r) about the earth's surface?

That makes sense.

Did you know they were going to close today? Were you suprised by the news?

This seems to have come out of nowhere. Was anyone aware of this ahead of time? Why didn't anyone try sharing the news to get prestigious academics, institutions and others to loudly say this is a terrible idea? Or get Kelsey Piper or someone to write a big news article about this? 

Huh, that looks like it had a persistent effect too. Looks to me like you're a lot more productive when you work on your own stuff, now.

So what happened around Feb 25? It sure looks like something about your usage of Youtube and Twitter changed. Just to make sure I plotted an XMR chart, and yep, it sure looks like there's been a change in the process. (The a couple points lie outside the limits, and there are 3/4 consecutive points closer to the limits than the mean. Both signify exception variation, suggesting you did something different. The yellow line is just a divider showing the datapoint corresponding to the 18th Feb.) 
.

Huh, I didn't know this was equivalent to the born rule. It does feel pretty natural, do you have a reference to the proof?

Wasn't this the assumption originally used by Everret to recover Born statistics in his paper on MWI?