Posts
Wikitag Contributions
oh ok you said "has obvious adhd" like you're inferring it from a few minutes observation of her behavior, not that she told you she has adhd. in general no you can't get an accurate diagnosis by observing someone, you need to differential diagnosis hypomania, hyperthyroidism, autism, substance abuse, caffeine, sleep deprivation, or just enjoying her hobby, plus establish whatever behavior is adhdlike happens across a variety of domains going back some time.
Furthermore it's pretty basic flaws by LW standards, like the "map/territory" which is the first post in the first sequence. I don't think "discussing basic stuff" is wrong by itself, but doing so by shuttling in someone else's post is sketch, and when that post is also some sort of polemical countered by the first post in the first sequence on LW it starts getting actively annoying.
convenient fiction aka a model. Like they almost get this, they just think pointing it out should be done in a really polemical strawmanny "scientists worship their god-models" way.
It's telling they manage to avoid using the word "risk" or "risk-averse" because that's the most obvious example of a time when an economist would realize a simpler form of utility, money, isn't the best model for individual decisions. This isn't a forgivable error when you're convinced you have a more lucid understanding of the model/metaphor status of a science concept than scientists who use it, and it's accessible in econ 101 or even just to common sense.
More specifically, the correctness of the proof (at least in the triangles case) is common sense, coming up with the proof is not.
The integrals idea gets sketchy. Try it with e^(1/x). It's just a composition of functions so reverse the chain rule then deal with any extra terms that come up. Of course, it's not integrable. There's not really any utility in overextending common sense to include things that might or might not work. And you're very close to implying "it's common sense" is a proof for things that sound obvious but aren't.
1Claude 3.7 is too balanced, too sycophantic, buries the lede
me: VA monitor v IPS monitor for coding, reducing eye strain
It wrote a balanced answer, said "IPS is generally better" but it's kind of sounding like 60/40 here, and it misses the obvious fact that VA monitors are generally the curved ones. My older coworkers with more eye strain problems don't have curved monitors.
I hope on reddit/YT and the answer gets clear really fast. Claude's info was accurate yet missed the point and I wound up only getting the answer on reddit/YT.
One I've noticed is pretty well-intentioned "woke" people are more "lived experiences" oriented and well-intentioned "rationalist" people are more "strong opinions weakly held." Honestly, if your only goal is truth seeking, and admitting I'm rationalist-biased when I say this and also this is simplified, the "woke" frame is better at breadth and the "rationalist" frame is better at depth. But ohmygosh these arguments can spiral. Neither realize their meta is broken down. The rationalist thinks low-confidence opinions are humility; the woke thinks "I am open to others' lived experience outside of my own" is humility.
Experientially, yes, I've seen both "sides" be well intentioned, in reasonably good faith, both trying to act above a baseline level of rational, and a baseline level of humble along privilege concerns. IDK the solution but the general pattern should be something like reverting to "human" norms not "debate" norms, like use "I feel" statements and draw on what you genuinely have in common at point of debate. (If the answer is "nothing" then either your norms difference escalated to a real fight or you have different instrumental goals so go do something else.)
Keep in mind their goal is to take money from gambling addicts, not predict the future.