https://x.com/JacobHHilton/status/1794090561294467074

He has also explicitly told people not to expect candor from him on this issue until the situation changes. That the binding is no longer part of a contract, as opposed to implicit threat, seems of little relevance.

I am very curious how you think about this post in retrospect: parts of it seem clearly falsified. I completely understand if you currently feel bound by a non-disparagement clause and expect it to be a few weeks before that can be confirmed to no longer apply. 

Three years later, I mostly stand by this: war with China has not happened, but estimates of likelihoods have risen, and it not driven by food concerns in the slightest.

How do you expect journalism to work? The author is trying to contribute one specific story, in detail. Readers have other experiences to compare and draw from. If this was an academic piece, I might be more sympathetic.

Correction: the Youtube link should point to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpwSNiLV-nw, not the current location (a previous video of yours).

I wish I knew! Nobody has yet explained it to me, nor do I have any theories I am particularly confident in.

This is deeply unconvincing. We didn't have a great power war in the 60s or the 70s because that would have meant nuclear war. High-level US government officials in internal documents describe Russia as an existential threat. Russian government documents, as I understand it, reflect terror of American willingness to use nukes. We haven't had a war between the US and China yet, but estimates of that holding true over the next five years are less confident than I'd like.

"Most wars have ultimately been fought over land because land determines food production and food production was a matter of life and death."

It seems like you're explaining the actions of kings with the preferences of peasants (and I am very unconvinced that a victorious war was better for the average peasant than peace), and I don't see that as particularly persuasive. 

Priors are relative to how much evidence can be shared. There may not be agreement in a single conversation, but they should expect movement towards a common belief, though there are degenerate counter-cases. For example, perhaps both parties share a base rate and have different pieces of information that push in the same direction.

I think that the reason I don't see a lot of arguments against anti-vaxxers is that I don't know that I know of any. I think the reason that I see anti-vaxxers derided more often than average is flat-earthers are parsed as harmless and anti-vaxxers are parsed as doing harm. I think I'm not quite following what you're saying.

There's not a hard cutoff between 2005, when Ioannidis publishes, and the present, but I've worked on multiple systematic reviews, going over thousands of papers, and there's a visible improvement in quality over time, and that seemed like a reasonable date for "replication crisis attention is high."