All of Adam Selker's Comments + Replies

If the counts weren't public until after voting were closed, do you think people would vote significantly differently?

My instinct says they wouldn't.

damn, i'm not sure; maybe it was my Twitter cover picture: [] (this is content i modified from someone else)

Insufficient data for meaningful answer

Nope. A few minutes later, a flight attendant comes to my seat, with the gate agent following behind, to tell me that I have to put a surgical mask on top of my respirator. Seems like the gate agent must have come aboard specifically to ask the flight attendant to do this.

When I tell her that my respirator does not have a valve, and is allowed by airline policy, she says that she can't determine whether or not it has a valve, and asks me whether I'm willing to comply with her request. I say "yes" as I'm afraid of the consequences of saying no. They leave b... (read more)

I don't think these examples are quite security theater.  A good bike lock makes your bike harder to steal; a "theatrical" bike lock would mostly just make it look harder to steal.  Even a skinny cable lock, the sort you can cut with fingernail clippers, keeps it from being stolen by passers-by who don't have fingernail clippers.


(Of course, the same argument applies to the TSA, so maybe I'm just wrong about what "security theater" means.)

I think part of the "security theater" argument with the TSA is that their own testing has shown that they don't do a very good job at actually preventing weapons from getting onto planes.

Exceptions (which I think is what you mean by edge cases) DO indicate that a rule is incomplete or not universal.

Yes!  But rules don't have to be complete or universal to be acceptable.

Rules about people should be more formally correct than is implied by this post.

I think I see what you're getting at.  My instinct kinda runs the other way, though: if people don't fit neatly into categories (and you care about the edge cases), it might be better to throw out the rule entirely rather than formalize it and categorize those edge cases.  Could you give an example of where formalizing would be helpful?

Certainly in actual legislation, formalizing the criteria so that there are no exceptions is wise.  This is often equivalent to throwing out the rule and rethinking why you're considering it in the first place, so as to have a more legible description of who it applies to. To take a non-hotbutton topic, this is the very simple version of a rule for whether something is "prepared food" in Washington State and thus is taxed differently from groceries: []  There are pages of details and exceptions to the exceptions in the actual legislation and case law around it.

Could you expand on this?  What are the fnords?

1Thomas Kwa1y
There are lots of bug repellents. Being from a dry climate I have little experience with this, but Wirecutter recommends picaridin-based repellents, and I expect a tiny bottle of 100% DEET to be practical enough to carry around everywhere.

That makes sense.  I guess I'm mostly reacting to the last sentence, which adds a moral aspect.

(I'm also not 100% sure how much the last sentence is a joke, or deliberate exaggeration?)

I think I basically mean it straightforwardly. In my mind it is pretty similar to other moral injunctions like "tell the truth" or "speak up for the bullied"—it is important to resolve to do it ahead of time, because in the moment it might be quite hard and costly to do so. So if someone were to start talking about how actually the bullied need to learn to stick up for themselves, etc etc, I would want to remind myself and others that while this is true, it shouldn't change my moral resolution to stand up to bullying. (It's perfectly fine for people to discuss whether maybe we shouldn't stand up for them, but if someone gives an argument that doesn't apply, or evidence that later turns out to be false, I want to again reiterate the resolution.) Maybe this is overkill or something but I think it feels pretty straightforward to me. I think sometimes my moral resolutions do in fact get eroded by people questioning them, and not "re-committing" afterward.

lest we see anyone waver in their moral resolution to internalize most externalities.


If I find out that internalizing externalities is harmful, I don't want to do it!  It might be harmful to moralize this, in case it makes it harder to change our minds?

There are plenty of things you should still resolve to do. You don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater by maintaining maximum irresolution so you'll never have difficulty changing your mind. Just change your mind when important evidence comes in—and in this case, I'm trying to point out that it is not important evidence against internalizing externalities. (It is evidence against levying the full externality cost and failing to try mitigating trades that reduce that externality cost.)

I'm planning to participate, if I can find some folks to work together in person!

I'm in Redwood City.

What is this trick?  The video seems to be gone.

Here's the video: [] ... I cleaned my desk.

I think this might conflate "science" with something like "statistics".  It's possible to study things like personal experience, just harder at scale.

The Hollywood-scientist example illustrates this, I think.  Dr. Physicist finds something that wildly conflicts with her current understanding of the world, and would be hard to put a number on, so she concludes that it can't and shouldn't be reasoned about using the scientific method.

I don't get the punchline.  Do they plan to capture and use the AGI rather than killing it?  Spread more zombie plague, for some reason?  Did they start it in the first place?  Does the briefcase have vaccines in it?

Good solution IMO, and I would recommend keeping the "Repost" in the title. It doesn't cost much.

It doesn't cost much, but a year from now it also probably won't help much either, and it does make lists of posts a little harder to scan if they have [meta] info at the front of the title. (I do think keeping 'First posted on Steemit [] on July 30, 2016.' at the top will still make sense, but a person browsing LessWrong probably won't really care when it was first posted by that point)