Starts around 4min in and I’m 10min in. So far he’s talked about how you really need to understand the basic concepts before trying to learn more advanced stuff. (Also I used to know the guy who’s talking. Besides chess, he’s a fan of Ayn Rand.)
The arrogance and confessions about rationalism are interesting, particularly near the start of the thread. He says he felt like he should win because he thinks he’s rational, and that lots of people liked Less Wrong due to this vibe. I agree and some of my readers have the same problem.
The difference is LW encourages and sanctions it when you talk to others, whereas I challenge and criticize it, which is a major reason that people dislike me.
Explains a passive-aggressive speech pattern.
Privileged elite thinking.
I don’t understand the last sentence. It reads like you’re saying that you challenge and criticise talking to others. Does this mean you discourage trying to use CF as a way to increase your status with other people by looking like an intellectual? Or does it mean something else?
When people post at LW, they are encouraged in their arrogant rationalism. They are encouraged to think that the community in general, including them personally, are smarter and more rational than Other People. The discussion atmosphere reinforces that they are special and deserve to win and get their way about stuff.
When people come talk at my forum, I discourage that stuff. I don’t treat them as one of the Chosen. I don’t assume they’re super great in return for them assuming it about me. I challenge and criticize stuff. Instead of saying “yay, nice to meet another genius” I look for flaws. People were often expecting to be respected and sanctioned, and accepted into the ingroup, not challenged and told they need to focus on self-improvement. Then they get upset. (Suggesting they work on basics, like grammar, makes this worse.)
No link preview apparently. It’s: The modern media player for macOS.
Long, intelligent videos about video games.
Item duping found in breath of the wild. It’s interesting partly from the perspective of what bugs programmers are still writing. You might think people would be more careful with pointers by now, and never deal with them directly (only indirectly via some library/framework/tool that’s gotten tons of effort, been reused on tons of projects, and is super robust and safe), but nah… Or maybe just don’t even write in a language where there’s any expectation that you deal with pointers… Maybe even consider not mutating state all the time since so many of the bugs are from that… So many games think they can just add some effect to your character, in a permanent way, and rely on some other code running in the future to properly remove it, and over and over again that turns out to be unsafe and buggy. The least they could do is have variables for permanent stuff and variables for temporary stuff and then be easily able to refresh and recalculate your stuff by clearing the temporary stuff and just using the permanent stuff. This could be done automatically every time your character rests. Yet so many RPGs have bugs that can ruin the game with no way to ever get your characters stats recalculated from the base values again. They also do stuff like make you invulnerable for a cutscene and then you use some glitch to cancel the cutscene early so then code to make you vulnerable again never happens. It’s the same kinda issue as e.g. when Pillars of Eternity had people permanently losing hp on characters because a temporary hp loss debuff was not being properly removed every time, which proves the fundamental design of their system is unsafe. None of the 3d games seem to be able to prevent characters from going through walls, either, but that involves some other issues.
This may be the most viewed article I wrote, but it didn’t do well at first. Articles making fun of Trump tended not to do great, but it was satire malpractice not to do it. This article was in reaction to Trump saying he did more for religion than any other president, and I just tweaked that a little. But not enough, because how this one took off was the left picked it up thinking it was a serious article, and it got spread far and wide. Despite the charges that the Bee was misinforming people on the right, many of the articles that got the most spread as “fake news” were spread by people on the left.
Anyway, I love just taking a ridiculous position and arguing it seriously, so it was fun to write Trump’s argument that he was more important to Christianity than Jesus in Trump’s voice. I thought I nailed it.
restaurants with any sort of online ordering (including third party stuff like uber eats) need to limit how many orders they accept.
If they raise prices they’ll get fewer orders. Maybe they’ll get lots of complaints and bad publicity too.
Or maybe some combination of higher prices and online order limits. I could see routinely not being able to order online during the lunch and dinner rushes leading to complaints and customer attrition as well. Perhaps limiting open hours, with more staff working at the same time, could be another response to the labor shortage.
To be clear, I didn’t intend to comment on pricing. I was just trying to briefly say what the point of the video is.
A problem with raising prices to reduce demand (which I don’t recall any economics literature ever mentioning) is a lot of people are too mathematically illiterate to notice the price difference and change their behavior accordingly. People are pretty awful at budgeting, at remembering numbers, at comparing numbers, at understanding what numbers mean in their lives, etc. A lot of people literally don’t notice, and don’t change behavior, when services like instacart or doordash use 10-40% hidden markups on prices (in addition to multiple other fees). Those people might eventually find they are short on money, have no idea why, complain that minimum wage is too low, and come up with some kind of plan to save money – which might be cooking their own food more, or buying new clothes less, or avoiding starbucks, or buying their kids fewer video games, or lowering the speed of their cable internet, or driving further out of their way to go to gas stations with slightly cheaper gas. They might target their budgeting at the wrong thing, and possibly at something where the amount to be saved is tiny. Their plan to save money might even be counter-productive, just like e.g. people’s plans to lose weight are sometimes counter-productive.
Venmo and Paypal steal money.