All of ztzuliios's Comments + Replies

I personally don't feel "fluent" programming this way, and maybe it is my own perfectionism, but this and the other replies, while certainly understandable and defensible, ring a little more hollow than I would like. I think going down below the level of "just know what APIs broadly exist" and actually being fluent at that lower level is usually necessary for the true 10-100x devs I've seen to work at that level. Usually this is achieved by building lots and lots of practical, deployable systems, but this just means it is implicitly taught through experien... (read more)

Writing algorithms that are 50 lines of code seems like one definition of fluency, and one that is probably relevant in compilers/backend, but this also rings a little hollow to me, in terms of the pragmatics of real software engineering.

In my experience, most software engineering is using libraries, not language features; how would you describe fluency over libraries? Is "glue code" like command-line flags or CRUD web app routing subject to this? Should that code also "just flow"? In my experience truly powerful developers are able to do this, but even ma... (read more)

2danielechlin
* "Wrap that in a semaphore" * "Can you check if that will cause a diamond dependency" * "Can you try deflaking this test? Just add a retry if you need or silence it and we'll deal with it later" * "I'll refactor that so it's harder to call it with a string that contains PII" To me, those instructions are a little like OP's "understand an algorithm" and I would need to do all of them without needing any support from a teammate in a predictable amount of time. The first 2 are 10 minute activities for some level of a rough draft, the 3rd I wrote specifically so it has an upper bound in time, and the "refactor" could take a couple hours but it's still the case that one I recognize it's possible in principle I can jump in and do it.
4Yair Halberstadt
Indeed I am a Google L5, and I usually do look this stuff up (or ChatGPT it). I think it's more important to remember roughly what libraries do at a high level (what problems they solve, how they differ from other solutions, what can't they do) than trivia about how exactly you use them.
4Yair Halberstadt
You are right that writing code glue code is a large part of software engineering, and that knowing what the libraries do is an important part of that. But once you know (or think you know) what the libraries do, how quickly do you bash out the code that does that? Do you struggle, or does it just come naturally? And as faul_sname pointed out, often the quickest way to understand what the library does is to look at it. Is that something you're capable of doing, or are you forced to hope the documentation addresses it? Other times you want to write a quick test that the library does what you expect. Is that going to take you half an hour, or 2 minutes?
6faul_sname
I think the ability to "just look up this code" is a demonstration of fluency - if your way of figuring out "what happens when I invoke this library function" is "read the source code", that indicates that you are able to fluently read code. That said, fluently reading code and fluently writing code are somewhat different skills, and the very best developers relative to their toolchain can do both with that toolchain.

A talented developer can fluently translate a high level description of an algorithm into code in a language or ecosystem they are familiar with.

 

Could you say a little bit more about what "fluency" is in this context? It's doing all the work in this section but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to communicate. 

5Yair Halberstadt
What I mean is that once they know the algorithm they want, writing that as code just flows, they can write out 50 lines of code that represents the algorithm in 10 minutes, without having to stop to double check what they're doing after every statement. Of course their implementation will have bugs, but it will still be approximately correct. And vice versa, a talented developer can read any reasonably well written code and quickly work out what it's doing. It's really about fluency in a language, like the difference between talking in your first language Vs one you only know from lessons. Writing code is the bread and butter of your job, so if you can't do it fluently that's a problem.

California is not capable of extracting tax revenue from companies like Google in any meaningful way, so we shouldn't expect them to be capable of taking stronger, less directly self-benefiting action. If they can't get Google to pay them, they can't get Google to stop AI. 

What is California's great track record in this space? They have caused "May cause cancer in California" to be printed many times. We shouldn't expect them to save us.

2[anonymous]
Well yes. Also, while the California government has passed many laws and made many efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels, https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2023/12/15/us-producers-have-broken-the-annual-oil-production-record/?sh=180d45276cc6 to an extent all this does is send money elsewhere.

In general, committing to any stance as a personal constant (making it a "part of your identity") is antithetical to truthseeking. It certainly imposes a constraint on truthseeking that makes the problem harder. 

But, if you share that stance with someone else, you won't tend to see it. You'll just see the correctness of your own stance. Being able to correctly reason around this is a hard-mode problem. 

While you can speak about specific spectra of stances (vegan-carnist, and others), in reality, there are multiple spectra in play at any given tim... (read more)

4tailcalled
I don't think this is right, or at least it doesn't hit the crux. People on a vegan diet should in a utopian society be the ones who are most interested in truth about the nutritional challenges on a vegan diet, as they are the ones who face the consequences. The fact that they aren't reflects the fact that they are not optimizing for living their own life well, but instead for convincing others of veganism. Marketing like this is the simplest (and thus most common?) way for ideologies to keep themselves alive. However, it's not clear that it's the only option. If an ideology is excellent at truthseeking, then this would presumably by itself be a reason to adopt it, as it would have a lot of potential to make you stronger. Rationalism is in theory supposed to be this. In practice, rationalism kind of sucks at it, I think because it's hard and people aren't funding it much and maybe also all the best rationalists start working in AI safety or something. There's some complications to this story though. As you say, there is no such thing as an epistemic environment that has not (in a metaphorical sense) declared war on you. Everyone does marketing, and so everyone perceives full truthseeking as a threat, and so you'd make a lot of enemies through doing this. A compromise would be a conspiracy which does truthseeking in private to avoid punishment, but such a conspiracy is hardly an ideology, and also it feels pretty suspicious to organize at scale.

I think the critical difference is that while marital rape might not be a legal crime, and might not be seen as wrong by people who aren't subjected to it, it's obviously wrong for the person suffering it, and obviously identifiable as coercive and abusive even to the perpetrator. 

The spectrum then becomes (recognized as wrong x feels wrong) -> (not recognized as wrong -> feels wrong) -> (recognized as wrong x doesn't feel wrong) -> (not recognized as wrong x doesn't feel wrong). 

I think people are only talking about quadrant 3 when s... (read more)

The firearm use is a weird thing to point out. The usual explanation I see here is that social programming directed towards women drives them to value appearance more highly and use methods that are not as disfiguring, which means no firearms, but also no trains, bridges, high buildings, and so on.

Control is not a constant, and ability to effectively control depends on the social context. The state itself has acted as a counterweight to parental control for hundreds of years, and capital also acts as a counterweight -- if you don't want to live the way your parents want you to live or marry who they want you to marry, you can run away to the city and live free, which is easier if there are strong laws preventing you from being hunted down and honor-killed and jobs waiting for you in the urban center. Control was arguably at all-time lows in the late... (read more)

You're quite welcome.

I honestly have no idea. It might be in Expect Resistance somewhere, which if not directly about this topic, is generally about it. 

I may have been (edit: was probably) thinking about The Promise of Defeat, by Moxie Marlinspike, anarchist cyrptographer sailor extraordinaire and the author of the Signal protocol (and the original Signal app, though he's no longer with the project).

3[anonymous]
Thank you for both links, until now I have known only textbook descriptions of the anarchist movement so it was interesting to read some of Expect Resistance aswell as the latter essay.

Imagine what it was like for those of us who were talking about transhumanism, AI alignment, morphological freedom, cryonics, nootropics, keto diets, kettlebells, etc., in 2010, not 2023. 

Welcome to the bleeding edge. It's not an easy life. 

The most important thing to do is to learn to trust your research and the truth over what the tribe says. This can be very hard. I eventually sold most of my bitcoin after all my friends and family spent the summer of 2012 or so screaming at me that it was a bubble, a scam, etc., which seemed confirmed when th... (read more)

Read anarchists. Anarchists have had no hope since 1936 and still have never stopped fighting. I'm pretty sure there's a CrimethInc. essay on exactly this topic.

3[anonymous]
Would you happen to know the name/link to such essay? I made a brief attempt at searching for it but couldn't find it. Thank you.

I'm not saying it's bad to do these things.

I'm saying that if you're doing them as a distraction from inner pain, you're basically drunk.

How is this falsifiable?

Can you point to five people who have done this, but still have a different orientation from you?

The problem isn't that access to emotion is ableist. I think that suggestion is itself ableist, neurodiverse people have complete access to their emotions, their emotional reactions to certain things might simply be different. 

The problem is that no matter what you do, if you come to a conclusion different from OP, you are simply still "disembodied." You just need to "do more work." This is a way of counting the hits and excusing the misses. "Embodiment" is not "being in touch with your emotions," it is acting in the manner prescribed. 

What is ab... (read more)

-3Valentine
Okay, I'm mostly fine with you two having your exchange and me mostly ignoring it, but I'm gonna speak up against this bit: No. That's not what I said and it's not what I meant. You're making that part up. I'm describing a structure. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with convincing people of something. It's about pointing at reality and inviting people to see what I'm pointing at. If you don't want to look, or you look and you see something else, that's fine by me. Honestly. I doubt my saying this has a damn effect on your sense of what I am or am not saying or intending, honestly. But I'm not going to just let this calibre of bullshit projection slide by without comment.
2Slider
I understood it as a method of getting an access to emotions. The problem framing does not really carry an interpretation where you could be 100% aware of everything and still be suffering from the problem, because the antidote offered is to become aware of something (100% awereness might be superhumanly difficult). Claiming that most blind people do not see well 20 meters away is not disparaging in itself. Alexithymia is a catalogued autism trait. It is a spectrum and when you have met one autist you have met one autist. So while assuming all traits upon learning one of them would be erroneuos, the presence of each of the traits become relevant. It is sensible to check whether a particular blind person can see well 1 meter away, is able to turn their eyeballs or knows how to echolocate. Poor understanding of autism can lead to treating disparaging properties to be autism traits. Even misrepresenting frequency can have the same effect. Special interests are a thing but deducing "autistic -> spends daily 3 hours on some specific topic" is ignorantly wrong. Alexithymias basedness as a trait is not very questionable. As a trait alexithymia directly deals with awereness (it is not athymia in the same go). Thus lack of awereness is relevant to alexithymia. So to think without knowing that in the intersection of "awereness" and "autism" alexithymia is worth processing is a leap that can be justified in good faith. Thus I disagree and think that "suggesting that access to emotion is ablist" is not ablist. Being demanding and making a typical mind fallacy is quite bad a combo. Being sure that the antidote has high reliability does commit that kind of bad. I do think that insisting that it doesn't work is ignoring that alexithymic people can respond to stuff like this positively, to project a particular responce profile to be typical to the point of fallacy. Selling a placebo and a dangerously unreliable drug are slightly different things. The post does admit guilt of be

Lots of ink, but lots to think about. I'm thankful for this post fwiw.

The "no technical meaning" could maybe be an indicator of sarcasm. But you're right that there was no way for you to know I wasn't just misapplying the term in the same way as the OP.

I don't think this relates to group polarization per se but I take your point.

I didn't mean "triggered" to mean extremely so, someone can be mildly triggered and again, I apologize for (in my perception, based on your comment) doing that. I think you did the right thing.

2Slider
With no resonable way of knowing without context I am using "technical" here in a very idiosyncratic way. If two speech acts that have very different connotations and then strip them of the connotations if they are the same then the technical meaning is the same. If someone is being hateful I often proceed to "fix the message from them" mentally in my receiving end. So while I starkly reject parts of it, rejecting everything of it punishes also the non-hateful parts. Thus I have the cognitive task of "what they should have said". If there is no innocent message left after removing the hate, it is pure hate. This is a kind of "could a reasonable opiner opine this?" standard. It is easy to read "disembodied" in a ablist way but it might just be a clumsy way to refer to low charisma (is is "repairable"). So after phrasing incompetence is exhausted an assumption of malice starts. To have the statistical mean human deduce "That guy gets passionate in an unnatural way -> that guy is autistiic" has low plausibility. Backtracing where this logic would be natural, worrying about upholding a mask about a behaviour that has lots of details and has high fluency from the mimic target making it highly likely to be a statistical outlier that a masking strategy does not cover well (this is not meant to be a mask review). Confusion, "stiffness" or "odd feeling" would represent what happens in situations like these. Zero to 100% autistic label is irrealistic. The average hater is not that informed.

It does strike me as a rather fully general counterargument, written in a deliberately obfuscatory/"woo" style.  The focus on "listening to your body" seems like an obfuscation, it's an appeal to something deliberately put beyond measurement.  This does seem like it could apply to anything anyone cares about (you're a Red Sox fan? You're addicted to the suffering, your body is telling you to stop, land on Earth and get sober!).  If you have any reasons to disagree, that's coming from a place of addiction and you need to stop caring and presu... (read more)

3Slider
I think the idea of listening to your body is actually to make visible and thus measurable atleast on the inside the thing. It kinda does require a good faith approach. The hope is that people that are alexithymic might not be (coining words here) asomathymic, that people that do not have verbal access to their emotions (to a sufficient degree) would be able to have bodily access to them (to a sufficient degree). Assumptions that internal emotional access is easy and resonable to expect might be improperly ablist. But it can also be taken in the sense that emotional access is not assumed nor taken to be easy and "try wider spectrum of emotional access" is an action that would not and should not be done unprompted. Giving an advice of "have you tried to switch it off and on again?" does not neccesarily comment on the sophistication of interventions tried.

I completely agree and I think that levying the charges "disembodied" against anything on the opposite side of the mental dichotomy of "woo" is a weasel-word for the ableist slur of "autistic." I'm sorry this wasn't more clear, but I thought that sentence was fairly dripping as is.  I've written about this before as it applies to this topic, which is not to excuse the harm I've done if I've triggered you, but to show that I've precommitted to this stance on this issue.

3Slider
I feel slightly nervous I am overtly spending internet ink on this but here I go. I was unsure how obvilously wrong it was ment to appear. To me saying that "someone seems cold" is not problematic. "dissociated" and "disembodied" read to me to be part of natural feeling (expression), somebody could mean technical things with them and not have a attitude loaded into them. Those parts did not constitute drippingness for me. For autistic there was no technical meaning that could make sense. I was not triggered but it did cross my mind that not everyone thinks that is unbased take to me (and kind of categorising this knowledge as common only in the small subcommunity). Having those fly without anybody batting an eyelid would be normalising the hateful conduct. I was unsure whether the eyelid was batted already so I batted a separate eyelid. And tried to include indicators that it is a mild reaction (a kind of messaging I have reason to believe I frequently screw up). I do reflect that if I was in the context where this could be assumed common knowledge I would not probably be making this move (bat the eyelid). So I am wondering whether it connects to the object level phenomena (of groups polarising) where people harden their signals so that outsiders with more noise and less decoding ability do not get unintended messages.

It was always a Cthulhu LARP.  Remember that one thing?

Groups polarize over time. One of the ways to signal group membership is to react explosively to the things you're supposed to react explosively to. This is why as politics in the US have polarized, everyone has grown more breathless and everything is ${OUTGROUP}ist.  You gain ${KARMA} by being more breathless and emotional.  You can only stop this with explicit effort, but if you do that, you look dissociated, disembodied, autistic, and the social pressure against that is stronger than ... (read more)

0Slider
This is a real stigma consideration. Reminder that water is water. Autism as something inherently negative is ablism and improper.

I don’t know what’s up with the 80% category

Interestingly I've had the same issue, though I'm also not as well calibrated at the lower levels as you are, I also have a noticable calibration dip at around 80%.

1benjamincosman
No, but that's because you're sneaking in extra connotations in "a life well-lived": those words implicitly compare to the current distribution of human lives, and most humans get to live much longer than seven. Let's replace those words by the actual issue here: "If you were murdered at seven, would you consider your life as a whole better than not having existed at all?"; my answer becomes yes. No, but that's because you've completely ignored the quality-of-life angle. "Well-treated livestock" would be fed and sheltered and never fear wolves their whole lives; the difference isn't only the age at which they're killed. Now maybe you think their life isn't more pleasant, or that living a longer and less pleasant life is still better than a shorter pleasant one, but the way you've phrased the question ignores those issues.

You're ignoring an important aspect. Humans directly cause the suffering of farmed animals. It could be more important to eliminate the rape and murder humans directly inflict on farmed animals prior to optimizing the wild ecosystem. For example, there could be other negative utility from social technologies/institutions around industrialized animal rape and murder. I see the Holocaust as one such example of what those who rape and murder nonhumans will eventually (and inevitably) do to humans.

Answer by ztzuliios40

This is my personal experience. I maintained this schedule all throughout grad school. Eventually, though, I just got a prescription for Adderall and that worked much better.

Caffeine has a steep tolerance curve, and you will rapidly experience diminishing returns if you exclusively use caffeine. This means you are using caffeine to address your caffeine dependency and get you to baseline, rather than to push yourself above baseline. For this reason, you must cycle caffeine with other stimulants (or tolerance breaks) for it to remain effective. You also mus... (read more)

There are really no drugs that work the way you describe. Rohypnol or any other benzo will just knock you out, GHB gets you high, etc.. 

As long as you get the dosage right, there is very little risk in consuming drugs. You can also order testing kits that will verify that the substance you expect is in the mixture you've ordered. However, the economics of online drug marketplaces strongly disincentivize and harshly punish anyone "stomping" on the product, so they tend to be very safe.

It is also safe to order from them. In the best case, your drugs are... (read more)

There are depressingly many Washington think tanks who produce whitepapers on "winnable" nuclear exchanges with Russia and China. It does indeed depend on what you mean by surviving. That doesn't mean it's impossible.

The problem is not what the enemy will do, it's what the enemy can do. 

3superads91
Maybe no need to attribute any qualities to those papers. If, for instance, the situation was such that such war was inevitable, then yes, it makes sense to know if we could "survive" someway. My claim was simply that NATO would never invade Russia knowing that it would take at least civilization collapsed. It's completely self-defeating. The person to which I responded said "it's not as simple as"Russia has nukes, the end", in the context of a possible NATO invasion of Russia. All I meant to say was it effectively is.

Why? He has nukes. The end. No one is ever invading Russia. It is just impossible. NATO is not going to invade Russia. 


Russia has nukes with aging delivery mechanisms that are outpaced more and more each year.  If NATO missile defense can change the calculus such that retaliation from a first strike seems survivable, MAD is gone and Russia is vulnerable.  If NATO cyber capabilities could Stuxnet the Russian arsenal, MAD is gone and Russia is vulnerable. 

It isn't as simple as "He has nukes, the end." 

8superads91
" If NATO missile defense can change the calculus such that retaliation from a first strike seems survivable" Lol. Survive retaliation? Depends on what you mean by surviving. Maybe only get 70% of your country destroyed instead of 100%, maybe only get 70% of the population subsequently die from nuclear winter? Not much of a survival. Stuxnet the Russian arsenal? Are you serious? That barely worked in a baby nuclear arsenal, do you think it would work in the nation with the greatest nuclear arsenal, and with some of the most capable communities of cyber warfare? Why would NATO want to pretty much "just almost" destroy the world just to invade Russia?

He has said that he will keep on trying to recreate the Russian empire, which now includes several NATO states.

 

Where has he said this? How directly? 

Well, then it's reasonable to assume that Putin's desired end state is not complete annexation of Ukraine. However, even if Ukraine is an Austria/Finland-type neutral party, outside the Russian bloc but also outside of the American bloc, Putin's security goals are achieved. The minimum criteria for Putin's ideological goals being achieved seems like internal autonomy for Donetsk and Lugansk, the maximum would be the annexation of those areas to Russia in the style of Crimea. So annexation is unnecessary ideologically and strategically, and seems unlikely as a goal. 

What is the appropriate way to relate to emotions? How could the sequences have avoided disembodiment? The person who originally used that term seems to think that anything like the sequences would be similarly "disembodied," which makes me think that this issue is less about the inappropriate way the sequences relate to emotion, and more about the hubris of attempting to self-improve in ways other than those described in The Tao of Fully Feeling.

0Matt Goldenberg
I think there are other things like the sequences around that are much more embodied.

I'm already familiar, at least at that level, with dissociation, derealization, and depersonalization. That said, the claim made in the OP, and in the article Kaj Sota links echoing the same viewpoint, seems to be less that there are emotions dealt with in unhealthy ways within the sequences, and more that there are no emotions at all in the sequences, that rationalism is a project to replace all intuitive/automatic/uncontrolled processing with explicit/intentional/controlled processing.

Personally I think the construct actually being discussed seems more l... (read more)

3Gordon Seidoh Worley
Yes, I agree. I think I say as much in the post itself.

I've been trying to think of this too. It seemed like Putin already had everything he could have wanted with a frozen conflict in Ukraine, preventing it from joining NATO. This is what I've come up with:

  • Ukraine might have still been able to join the EU, which would mean an attack on Ukraine would activate the EU defensive alliance, which would in turn activate NATO. I'm not sure how realistic this was.
  • Ukraine might have been admitted to NATO anyway, with the ongoing conflict. This seems unlikely.
  • Ukraine might have been able to defeat the Russian army in a
... (read more)

One aim I could imagine having in Putin's shoes, that seems better achieved by slow telegraphing of war over Ukraine followed by actual war (vs by a frozen conflict), is gathering information about how the West is likely to respond to any other such wars/similar he might be tempted by.

(I know nothing of geopolitics, so please don't update from my thinking so. I got this idea from this essay)

6jwpapi
THIS. Putin is saying the same thing for 20 years. He doesn’t want to have border countries to be NATO members which he sees an extended arm for the United States (which military is probably true). Putin wanted to join the NATO, NATO wants Russia to be more western. Putin feels bullied. NATO keeps going extending EAST and broke the promise that was given after fall of the Berlin Wall. NATO argues that every country is free to join if they want to. That’s the conflict. Even on the 15th February Putin said he doesn’t want war he just wants assurance that Ukraine isn’t joining NATO. To put it easy to understand: Putin feels bullied by NATO.

So if the sequences are unemotional, they're disembodied, but if they are emotional, they're also disembodied?

Edit: In hindsight I'm conflating the article Kaj Sota links and the OP's tweets about the sequences keeping emotion "at an arm's length." I don't really agree that the sequences keep emotions at an arm's length, but sure, if this is not the same thing as being "disembodied," they might still be emotional and disembodied.

That said, what is the test that tells us something is not disembodied? Is any attempt to improve one's life through reason on it... (read more)

2Gordon Seidoh Worley
I framed it another way, but I made a whole post about who lot of people, including non-rationalists, are disembodied in a variety of ways, although I use a different term to describe it. See "You are Dissociating (probably)". Maybe that will help clear up some of the confusion about what people mean when they say "disembodied".
2Matt Goldenberg
If the sequences relate to emotions from a disembodied frame, they're disembodied.
4ChristianKl
The word disembodied is more about how people relate to their emotions than whether or not they have them.  If I imagine myself 15 years ago, I don't think it would have been easy for me to grasp what people mean when they do speak about disembodied in a case like this. There's probably room for a good post that explains the concept.

I think the problem is less in the "vibes" and more in the kind of person that is attracted to rationalism for rationalism's sake.  Ironically, this is also something discussed in the sequences. I once introduced the sequences to the anarchists I did activism with in college, and while some of them rejected most of it out of hand because it seemed politically unorthodox, some found real value in it and were able to use it to improve their lives or work in various ways. I've met many people since who were not "rationalists" or part of the "rationalist ... (read more)

The tone of the early sequences seems almost desperate.  

Disassociating emotions is one of the standards ways people deal with being desperate. That's a way for people to get disembodied. 

I think you're on-target both about covid and in general, about risk analysis vs. a safety heuristic. There are even degrees of this; even a motorcyclist who drove safely and practiced all reasonable safety precautions would be heckled by someone if they were to crash through no fault of their own, die, and leave behind their family behind. "What did they think would happen?" You could even say that the common victim-blaming tropes are reinforcing a norm that puts safety permanently out of reach, so that they are always "morally blameworthy" or in other wo... (read more)

This is the relevant data; what conclusions do you draw from that?

Maybe Zvi thinks people think:

>In addition, any mention of them, or any encouragement, would lead people to be less eager to get vaccinated or take other preventative measures, and we can’t have that.

This is very similar to the Faucian notion of saying whatever, true or untrue, leads the public to take the actions he wants them to take, as was the case with masks, and we could find out is the case with something else in the future; we can't know when we're being lied to in order for the greater good to be served.

But personally, I think you can explain s... (read more)