Which is why I linked the nature article? It's plain obvious an interesting point I tried to make that "normal" people will instantly perceive someone as likeable or unlikeable. Which the article in the OP goes great lengths to discuss.

I mean I can live with people immediately going against my point, I just see they didn't even gave it 5 minutes of thought. Which is not necessarily directed at you, I cannot possibly convince anyone and reply to anyone at the same time.

The article is definitely a mental health topic. A little harmless stage fright before a presentation is not real clinical generalized anxiety and affects most normal people.

> Why else would someone be so anxious about how others see them?

The scientific consensus would tell the author that judgement in humans happens already the moment they see a person and it is immediate, even if the person not doing anything:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40700

>across three studies, we find that first impressions [...] made from thin slices of real-world social behavior by typically-developing observers are not only far less favorable across a range of trait judgments compared to controls

Edit:

Okay this was completely misunderstood. My point was that the "normal" people in the study immediately internally know if to like or not like a person. Hence why first impressions DO matter the most. Which is why I simply disagree with the argument in the OP that anyone has control over their perception.

You also cannot win people over if the most respected person in a group dislikes you. The others will follow boot.

"The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory - precession of simulacra."

There never was a crane, the maps didn't show one.

[YES!!!] / [Remind me later™]

Thinking more about it, you see this both in forums and IRL: https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths (Minus the trolling aspect as in groups there is no anonymity as in a forum.)

Often rich people associate only with people of equal wealth in cigar lounges or country and golf clubs. It's to be expected many hidden filters apply to online and messaging culture as well. Your C.S. Lewis quote and idea of how this applies even to HN is very positive. Indeed I only could reply because I saw your article at the right time in my feed and happened to be online and browsing entries.

In the past I liked to read a lot of Scott Alexander Siskind, SSC/ACX and LessWrong, even if often disagreeing with some points. Don't be afraid to be wrong when blogging. It is an iterative process and to be honest, I would like a blogger who does a review of his old posts after a year and write where their opinions changed. Not in full, but selecting a few opinions that got refined over time. And don't fear your audience being small. Often I vote up content because it is different or prompted me to self-reflect.

I wonder what the cut-offs are for "group is too small" and "group is too large", but that certainly depends on the subject the group is about. A philosophy book reading group probably doesn't work well with the bestselling crime novel audience.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/microsoft-swiftkey...

Always assume companies will gather, use and share your data in all ways they legally can. The burden of proof is never on the user that companies don't milk us. Calling it "misinformation" as someone further above did is bizarre. This is the default business model of big tech.

Even a rock containing an ore had an incentive to form. The behaviour of elemental orbitals determines which phases and minerals crystallize first and last (see HFSE).

You can take this further that even sand dunes have emergent behaviour governing their formation and movement in a desert. Is everything still going to crap when we run out of energy and reach a final state of entropy? Sure! But this is one hell of a ride.

Now in regard to Doctorowian Enshittification: Companies favour short term solutions these days because they cannot function like something that evolved over millions of years to perfection. We started with probably 3 streaming services (for movies), now we have 30 and they wonder why we cannot pay each of them 55 USD as we had to with cable and 100+ paid channels?

They don't know (yet/ever) the real incentive is to find an evolutionary niche to thrive on. You can never cater to all tastes at once. Explain this: Why do most restaurants focus on one nationality? (the owner can have a different nationality and it still works). Now you have hit the jackpot to de-shittify.

Note if you look at the paper, you notice a close but not entirely perfect normal distribution, but nothing you cannot fix with UDNs and Irwin-Hall. For reference how that is done you can read the bottom of this very useful RNG article: https://people.ece.cornell.edu/land/courses/ece4760/RP2040/C...

My overall verdict on the tech in OP is that it is amazingly promising!

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366617630/German-court-f...

Actually the reality was the honeypots were illegal to use as evidence in court. So these criminals are now smarter and more dangerous as we taught them OPSEC.

In the Physicists from 1961 (German: Die Physiker, F. Dürrenmatt) the central theme is that scientists cannot "uninvent" something. Encryption is here to stay. Mathematically proven. Period.

The criminals will just flock to the "real encryption" and not the honeypots/backdoored messengers as they are being caught. In the end word of mouth will spread: "This is safe, this is unsafe."

Just because a few Kremlin bots on Telegram are brainwashing people in the west, the west doesn't have to become North Korea.

Defending the innocent law abiding adult Joe, just wanting to send their honey pics in private is a distractor in this argument. I will not sacrifice my western standards just because 0.1% people are inherently evil.

It may seem obvious now, but I know most people will forget and be puzzled if their phone suffers physical damage. A lot about this has mandatory manual steps.