Edit: I guess I’ll try to respond in good faith, even though I don’t totally understand why you’re asking me about this. If you click through to the Foreign Policy article, you’ll see Bruce Schneier listed as the first author before Ottenheimer.

But really, I’m not trying to imply whatever it is you’re inferring. By all means, draw whatever conclusions you like from Schneier’s authorship!

I would prefer this one were removed and replaced with Schneier’s article at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43035977, currently at 150 upvotes.

I picked up the habit in Massachusetts, in the mid 2000s, from an Ivy League humanities professor who also expressed support for a student debt strike. He used it very deliberately, in an effort to un-train our public school–addled brains from the inanity that we were somehow smarter than others for having fewer words in hand. In my bones, the thought of not using it as appropriate feels uneducated.

Using “y’all” in conversation shows incredible confidence, a way to flex command of formal language in an informal setting. It’s often used with emphasis. It leverages the listener’s discomfort, saying: I know precisely which register I’m speaking in. It’s an “elite” thing to do.

What you’ll never hear is one of these people using “y’all” as a formal address— especially as a singular, as in the rote “Y’all been served?” for a dining party of any number. There are a number of reasons for that, but number one is simple: It’s a high status signal.

Edit to add: Maybe importantly, this doesn’t extend to the casual use of “all y’all” . I think the colloquial academic equivalent would be “you [emphasized pause] all”. If you weren’t familiar you’d probably transcribe it as “you all”, but it’s closer to “you, all”. Looking at it now, I think that’s “intentional abuse” of the formal variant for intensifying, with just enough stress to make it visibly intentional?

But I should be clear I haven’t studied this dialect at all, I just learned to speak it :)

Gettier’s contribution — the examples with Smith — sharpens it to a point by making the “knowledge” a logical proposition — in one example a conjunction, in one a disjunction — such that we can assert that Smith’s belief in the premise is justified, while allowing the premise to be false in the world.

It’s a fun dilemma: the horns are, you can give up justification as sufficient, or you can give up logical entailment of justification.

But it’s also a bit quaint, these days. To your typical 21st century epistemologist, that’s just not a very terrifying dilemma.

One can even keep buying original recipe JTB, as long as one is willing to bite the bullet that we can flip the “knowledge” bit by changing superficially irrelevant states of the world. And hey, why not?

I was once pairing on the lead’s laptop and switched the keyboard to Dvorak. This was back in 2010 or so, when the input menu wouldn’t show on the lock screen by default. The lead could not type Dvorak, and of course I did not know their password. I remember that moment of silent contemplation keenly…

That’s to say, yes, and the sensation of being a frustrated jibbering wreck can be contagious :')

With the serious caveat that ACE score isn’t a great predictor for individuals: if your siblings have ACEs >=3, it’s entirely plausible that that trauma explains none, some, or all of the differences you’re referring to.

(If, like me, you grew up thinking socioeconomic status was the gold star predictor of cohort health, the past couple of decades of research here are pretty shocking!)

An important thing for you and I to keep in mind is that we aren’t just talking about psychology.

ACEs cause (or exacerbate) depression, anxiety, and so on; they also cause (or exacerbate) cancer, heart disease, autoimmune disorders, and so on.

It’s obviously a lot of work to disentangle causation from secondary health impacts of mental illness, but to our shame there is more than enough data, and the work has been done. An appreciable fraction of the damage done by ACEs is physical and irreversible after adolescence.

I think this is important for us to remember because it’s easy for us to say, oh, they must need some extra support. And yeah, they do. But it’s too little, too late. They — the children — need us to stop the ACEs from happening.

Editing in a caveat I remembered elsewhere: of course the scores don’t cause these things, and of course the individual variance is huge. As a diagnostic criterion, ACE is useful as a screener and that’s about it. As a statistic, it’s revealed a pandemic.

Edit: Ah shoot not again. What I meant to say was “scabbing as an agent provocateur”. Sorry, I’ll quit while I’m ahead!

In labor, “respecting the picket line” is a moral action for union members (or scabs) which by definition couldn’t apply to a spontaneous self-directed consumer boycott.

Not to put to fine a point on it: if you show up to someone else’s labor action claiming solidarity, and then independently decide to pivot the action to a totally different set of economic incentives, you are — almost literally! — a scab.

Since turnabout is fair play, it’s worth noting this is mostly false; if you google “minor fall music theory” you’ll only find references to Cohen.

In (conventional western) analysis, a “fall” wouldn't be something mechanical, it would always imply a contextual interpretation.

So it’s a valid reading of the text to say it means something about the chord structure, but — from a purely musical theoretical perspective — just as valid to read it as a reference to the flattening of the minor degree of the scale, or something else entirely.

It’s really a lovely song :)

Let’s reset: Hey, did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo? Did they actually? Despite all the reasons they wouldn’t? If they did, why? Was it a mistake or on purpose? Neither one quite makes sense.

Those are interesting questions! But there’s no alleged secrets leak, and there’s nothing else that’s interesting about that specific picture. You could say it’s implied somehow, but in that case you really got got by anti-clickbait. “Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?” is the whole riddle, and the answer is the whole blog post.

As a general statement, no, vision isn’t as time-sensitive as hearing, so the timing requirements aren’t as precise. But when it comes to head and hand tracking, the brain’s also doing predictive sensor fusion, and even “unnoticeably” small delays can be disorienting or nauseating. (Ocular fixation is the most sensitive, but hand-eye coordination is also pretty important to the brain!)

The important number in VR is “motion-to-photon” latency. Over 20ms starts to be noticeable to most people; 50ms starts to make most people uncomfortable. That’s the total budget for sensor fusion, simulation, rendering, and display, and that’s just for the bare-minimum experience that doesn’t make people immediately ill.

You can do a lot with prediction and late updates in screen space, which is what makes VR possible at all on current hardware— but it’s hard to make up for having sensor data delayed by possibly 150% of the total time budget :)

But note that’s a reason for casinos not to overtly discourage counting; they’ll still happily ban a player who is apparently counting well rather than roll the dice on whether they’re counting “well enough”.

[0] Sibling points out that counters will make specific deviations from “naive” perfect play depending on the count, but that’s to push earnings up a bit on an already positive edge. There’s also the element of camouflage, where a really strong counter might deviate in ways that don’t hurt their earnings but make their play look less “counter-y”.

Any insurer would have to guarantee some share of the 1.05x EV per toss, call that share itself X. The insurer would keep the remainder of the EV as premium, call that Y.

X and Y are both positive so it seems at first like you should be able to underwrite this. However, the math will not work out unless you change the dynamics of the model in some way.

The fundamental problem is that this is a model for a sequence of N events, and X (and therefore Y) are exponential functions of N. After some finite N, it’s only the insurer’s most recent guarantee that matters to the total payoffs. No previous events are consequential; the brute force of exponential math says the exponent alone dominates.

So we can just think in terms of x^N. At some point the insurer must pay out x^N in losses from the previous x^(N-1) in gains.

In other words, regardless of the premium charged, or the number of individuals whose risk is pooled, this individual’s status as an insurer doesn’t give them any special exemption from exponential reality that prevents individuals in general from remaining solvent in the limit of this model.

(I haven’t totally worked through the outcome table for the author’s proposed solution— I’d encourage you to do that if you think the solution might be flawed. But this does indeed seem to be a situation where any individual who attempts to capture the EV will fail, and only unconditional sharing can succeed.)

The article is pretty pointedly about wealth redistribution, i.e. pooling of windfalls rather than of risk, but I don’t think that was lost on anyone... are you talking about a different model where there’s some sort of insurable situation?

That’s not even snark, humans preferring both of higher risk and lower payoff is a canonical psycho-economic result. And even the question of whether the concept of a rational utility maximizer is well-founded is the exact subject of this very fine article!

Too late to edit but I feel like I should highlight this more, because it looks like the place something would be swept under the rug:

Yes, the individual who wins two flips in a row is still ahead even if they lose the next two flips. If they win the first four, they can afford to lose three more.

And if they win the first five, they can afford to lose… still only three. Five to four no longer breaks even.

That’s the thing that, if it doesn’t seem intuitive, is a meaningful insight. “This +EV dynamics is not ergodic” means:

In the limit, a) the individual who wins every single coin flip can afford to pay the losses of everyone else and profit, and b) no other individual breaks even.