He also gave an update in comments:
Next day I was fleeing the country. The journey took me more than 50 hours. I was awake for the whole trip. But now I’m safe.
High status people often aren’t great people and often don’t have enviable lives. Read their texts and see for yourself.
In 2016, The Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR, a rationality research organization connected with Less Wrong) announced:
- They want to focus on “AI Safety” more than they care about rationality.
- They care more about influencing high status people and politics than about helping regular people be more rational.
Here’s a short explanation of our new mission:
- We care a lot about AI Safety efforts in particular, and about otherwise increasing the odds that humanity reaches the stars.
Would you rather: (a) have bad rationality skills yourself; or (b) be killed by a scientist or policy-maker who also had bad rationality skills?
I originally thought that the quote meant something like:
Would you rather: have bad rationality and be alive because important people have good rationality, OR: good rationality and be dead cuz the important people have bad rationality?
But re-reading the sentence, I noticed the “also”. So instead of choosing between either you or important people having good rationality, your actually only choosing whether the important people have rationality or not, and you in both scenarios don’t have rationality.
(i think title is a typo and they meant 2h 53m)
Says: Newborn baby deaths double in Scotland. Reason unknown but not due to acute covid infections. Experts/authorities refuse to investigate, or gather data about, whether it’s being caused by covid vaccines or longer term consequences of covid.
Elon Musk trying to cheat a bunch of Twitter workers he fired.
On a related note, he’s also trying to cheat the executives he fired.
He breaks contracts in such obvious bad faith. I think the legal system doesn’t penalize this stuff appropriately (partly there’s a bias to be soft on white collar crime compared to blue collar crime; the lawmakers and judges are far more likely to get in white collar crime trouble than blue collar crime trouble, so maybe that’s why). If a powerful entity chooses to do business with Musk, that’s partly their fault; people should have researched him and known better years ago before doing business with him. But both the regular Twitter workers and the executives did not want to do business with Musk and didn’t trust him (in general; doesn’t apply to every individual). So I sympathize with them.
In Musk’s unfathomably long first week or so running Twitter, he has driven away and threatened advertisers, fired and then un-fired employees who he needed to run the site, rolled out and then rolled back a new verification service that didn’t work, banned a bunch of users for making fun of him, and then taken to Twitter to make fun of them. If this is business genius it is, uh, too early to see the results. If this is commitment to free speech, it is an unusual view of free speech. If he is having fun , it is an unusual kind of fun. (He changed the location in his Twitter bio to “Hell.”) But if he is displaying the symptoms of an advanced case of Twitter addiction then, yes, this is all exactly what you would expect. He spent $44 billion to buy Twitter so he could win more arguments on Twitter.
This seems to be someone who likes Musk. A few years ago I saw someone tweeting about Musk flight data who hated Musk and also tweeted other negative things on Musk. I was wondering if it was banned now and, when searching, I saw this other account. I forgot the name of the older one so it’s hard to check it.
Musk is getting actual positive news articles for this one case of not banning someone he doesn’t like. Meanwhile he, apparently, banned a bunch of other people he doesn’t like (I have not investigated to verify that). Example:
Looks like FTX did fraud.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Elliot’s Microblogging