That article has no source, neither primary or secondary ones, it just made a lot of assertions. I wouldn't rely on it^[1]. Because of how low quality it is, I find it even more annoying that you asked readers to fact check, rather than finding more information yourself. 

Still, even assuming that there is indeed groups of people who are only relying on social welfare to survive and do nothing else, the trade-off is that cutting social expenditure would in fact harm the other groups of people who genuinely need it. What percentage of homeless in California are Muslims who also consciously decide to not work? Maybe you know about this number, but I don't and you didn't mention it so it seems to me that you are generalizing way too much. (A quick search tells me the base rate of Muslims in US is 1.1%). Welfare also consists of many policies, it is entirely possible that some policies are good while others are bad.

1. ^{^}

   In general Investor Business Daily also seem quite unreliable for non-investment news. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/investors-business-daily/ 

   Overall, we would rate Investors Business Daily Right Biased based on right-leaning economic and market positions. We would also give them a High factual rating on strictly investing and market news. However, editorially IBT is clearly a Questionable source with the promotion of right-wing conspiracy theories and numerous failed fact checks. In sum, we rate them far-right Biased and Mixed for factual reporting.

This comment is not shown as an answer because it is not an answer, it is asking clarifying questions. Notice how the LessWrong UI intentionally separates them.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.04682 

Reading the abstract immediately reminds me of this post

We propose a novel framework, Meta Chain-of-Thought (Meta-CoT), which extends traditional Chain-of-Thought (CoT) by explicitly modeling the underlying reasoning required to arrive at a particular CoT. 

As someone who wrote pages of pedantic rules for minecraft doors, I relate to this post a lot. Rules are just hard to write and to enforce consistently

This is pretty cool. A small complaint about the post itself is that it does not explain what Squiggle is so I had to look around in your website to understand why this Squiggle language that I have never heard of is used.

The most obvious thing is that I post things out when I want people to see it, and LW/Twitter is mostly about how serious I want to be.

I don't really. Idea get revisited when I stumble on it again, but I rarely try to plan and focus on some ideas without external stimulation.

The rules are not completely consistent over time though, also it is just not articulatable in 1 minute of effort lol. I'm sure I can explain 80% of the internal rule with effort

Obsidian/LW Shortforms/Twitter for slightly different types of ideas, can't articulate the difference though

Don't really want to touch the packages, but just setting the EVALS_THREADS environmental variable worked