R3qn65's recent activity
-
Comment on Proton Meet isn't what they told you it was in ~tech
-
Comment on University at forty in ~talk
R3qn65 (edited )Link ParentIt's not common, but it does exist - there are a couple unis in the US and UK that accept substantive work experience in lieu of an undergraduate degree for a few of their programs.It's not common, but it does exist - there are a couple unis in the US and UK that accept substantive work experience in lieu of an undergraduate degree for a few of their programs.
-
Comment on University at forty in ~talk
R3qn65 (edited )LinkI am pretty solidly against this! What I’m getting from your post is that this isn’t a vocational thing; your primary goal is to be intellectually challenged. With your background, most...I am pretty solidly against this! What I’m getting from your post is that this isn’t a vocational thing; your primary goal is to be intellectually challenged.
With your background, most universities aren’t going to give that to you.
If you’ve interviewed 150 thinkers and written a few successful books, your academic network - and the level of exposure you’ve had to new ideas - is already going to be above what you would find at even quite good universities. The university system plays a vital role in taking young adults and forcibly exposing them to new ideas and giving them a foundation in the humanities. You’ve already got that. And you’re a self-starter, clearly - you don’t need to be forced to explore new ideas, you’re doing that already. As it is, you will likely have broader knowledge than most of your professors and likely have more intellectual horsepower than most as well.
If there’s a way for you to jump right to grad school, that would be worthwhile, because a good grad program will basically let you do what you’ve been doing, but on steroids, and you won’t have to waste your time in Lit 101. If you have an extremely specific vocational skill you’re trying to learn (like become a nurse or something), that would be worthwhile, because you can’t do that anywhere else. If you can get into one of the top 20 universities in the US / Europe, that might be worthwhile as well, because the students and professors there will be closer to your level and so you’ll get much, much more out of general requirements that you’ll have to take.
Anything short of those three exceptions is going to be a waste of your time. You’d be better off just emailing professors that interest you and inviting them for an interview.
College is not what it used to be.
-
Comment on 'Dungeon Crawler Carl' TV series lands at Peacock in ~tv
R3qn65 Link ParentDinnaman has been writing about a book a year and there's only two books to go, so I think we're good. Even at his peak, Martin was writing like... a book every couple of years(?).Dinnaman has been writing about a book a year and there's only two books to go, so I think we're good. Even at his peak, Martin was writing like... a book every couple of years(?).
-
Comment on Linux kernel czar says AI bug reports aren't slop anymore in ~comp
R3qn65 Link ParentAbsolutely. It's so, so hard because the most authoritative people are also the closest to the hype machine (which is real) and thus not objective. At the same time, I completely agree that many...Absolutely. It's so, so hard because the most authoritative people are also the closest to the hype machine (which is real) and thus not objective. At the same time, I completely agree that many of the most strident anti-LLM voices have little familiarity with the tools and have been proven conclusively wrong repeatedly. Professor Bender's new book on the AI con, for instance, is reportedly pretty terrible.
The only things we know for sure are that the tools are capable and there is hype. Both extremes are true. But where does reality lie between them? Much harder to say.
-
Comment on Gyre in ~creative
R3qn65 Link ParentYeah, that's where I fell off. Honestly what did it for me was the sheer number of descriptions of every male character lifting weights, which got bad around the same time as the Singularity...Yeah, that's where I fell off. Honestly what did it for me was the sheer number of descriptions of every male character lifting weights, which got bad around the same time as the Singularity faction showed up. I thought it was awesome when it was, like, once every couple of chapters. But then it started to feel rather excessive. If the ending is worth it, though, maybe I can push through.
It's so fun to see another person who's read Deathworlders!
-
Comment on Anticipating a world where LLM use is widespread in ~tech
R3qn65 LinkThis is an interesting argument. Since you asked for new perspectives, I would argue that the biggest issue with this piece is that it is maximally positive on human efficacy and maximally...This is an interesting argument. Since you asked for new perspectives, I would argue that the biggest issue with this piece is that it is maximally positive on human efficacy and maximally negative on AI efficacy. Under those bounds, of course implementing more AI is going to look like a bad idea. But reality is more complicated.
Here's what I mean. The author cites the current accuracy of pilots (>99.999%) to demonstrate the accuracy of human-run systems and then writes, in the context of government services,
Even if the system is designed generously and cautiously, you're still replacing an accountable human decision with an automated system. Is it worth it if it's faster for the average user, but some percentage of people end up having to laboriously appeal a bad LLM decision? Again: thinking this works requires making huge assumptions about improvements in accuracy.
But government services aren't currently at 99.999% accuracy. Right now, more than 10% of Medicare claims are appealed and more than 80% of those appeals are accepted. That is abysmal in every direction and makes any claim that AI agents can only worsen the system immediately suspect. The whole piece is kind of like that.
And I agree with you re: maliciousness. LLMs are demonstrably less likely to be malicious than humans.
-
Comment on Gyre in ~creative
R3qn65 LinkThis was very, very good. Thanks for sharing.This was very, very good. Thanks for sharing.
-
Comment on Gyre in ~creative
R3qn65 Link ParentDid you manage to read Deathworlders all the way through? I loved it - like, loved it - for the first few years and gradually lost interest. :(Did you manage to read Deathworlders all the way through? I loved it - like, loved it - for the first few years and gradually lost interest. :(
-
Comment on US Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids in ~lgbt
R3qn65 (edited )Link ParentYeah, I didn't mean to imply that the existence of queer people is political. I think you understood that but clarifying for the record. The court is unquestionably conservative right now, but I'm...Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the existence of queer people is political. I think you understood that but clarifying for the record.
The history of this Court’s rulings indicate that they are politically motivated, and I’d hesitate before saying that the court will uphold this precedent if it obstructs the Conservative agenda.
The court is unquestionably conservative right now, but I'm more hopeful than you are here. They've delivered several very significant rebukes to Trump on some key parts of his agenda, and more than anything else the court seems determined to protect constitutional rights. Gorsuch (who wrote this opinion) also wrote the landmark 2020 opinion in Bostock v. Clayton holding that discriminating against queer individuals is illegal under title 7, for example. The constitution is imperfect so that's not a panacea, but I'm confident that they would uphold this precedent regardless of what Trump thinks/wants.
I’m not sure there’s a good outcome in general. Like you have said elsewhere, ruling the other way could have set the precedent for anti-queer laws in other states.
Yeah. :/
-
Comment on US Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids in ~lgbt
R3qn65 Link ParentI didn't realize this was ~lgbt and wouldn't have debated the points if I had. My apologies.I didn't realize this was ~lgbt and wouldn't have debated the points if I had. My apologies.
-
Comment on US Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids in ~lgbt
R3qn65 (edited )Link ParentYeah, that was unclear. I was trying to summarize the court's opinion and garbled it. Hopefully it will be clearer with the following. Yes, definitely, and this is a salient point. It's not...Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I’m not versed in free speech at all, and I haven’t read the opinion except for the portion you quoted.
Yeah, that was unclear. I was trying to summarize the court's opinion and garbled it. Hopefully it will be clearer with the following.
Aren’t there plenty of areas of law that control speech and speech alone when one person has an obligation to not cause harm to another? For example, a doctor cannot use words to mislead patients about their medical issues, certain investment advisors cannot misrepresent investments, NDAs generally forbid speech, and defamation law is entirely about controlling speech.
Yes, definitely, and this is a salient point. It's not entirely clear because her concurring opinion was kind of cryptic, but I think this is what Justice Kagan was getting at when she wrote that the court may have ruled differently if Colorado's law was content-based instead of viewpoint-based. What the court is arguing is that the key difference between the case at hand and the examples you cited is that Colorado's law placed viewpoint-based proscriptions on therapists limiting one side of the ideological spectrum but not the other. What that means is that Colorado's law didn't say something like "therapists must adhere to current best practices in standards of care," or ban discussion of gender identity in general, or even only ban conversion therapy; instead, the law expressly states that therapists may encourage clients to explore their gender identity but may not discourage them from doing so. I've pulled out a key part of the opinion below.
This is me and not the court, but the gist of their argument, I think, is that yes, all kinds of speech are limited all the time, especially in professional contexts, but it's uniquely dangerous when the government is placing limits exclusively on speech that corresponds to one side of the political spectrum. Justice Kagan, in her concurring opinion, explicitly noted that it would be equally unconstitutional for a state to try to bar therapists from encouraging clients to explore their gender identity.
To make it more explicit, the difference between this and a financial advisor's fiduciary responsibility is that the state imposes on the latter only a responsibility to act in the client's best interest and follow certain accounting rules and so on. The equivalent - and I get that it's not a perfect equivalent - would be if the state barred financial advisors from encouraging their clients to invest in "sin funds" (casinos, tobacco, etc.) or something.
For what it's worth, I agree with that principle. President Trump is in charge of America, no? I would rather have a court that disadvantages what I believe in if it helps make it more difficult for him (or people like him) to impose their beliefs on me. There's an argument to be made that the court could have refused to take the case in general, but I do not have enough legal background to understand what exactly the implications of doing that would be.
As applied here, Colorado’s law does not just regulate the
content of Ms. Chiles’s speech. It goes a step further, pre
scribing what views she may and may not express. For a
gay client, Ms. Chiles may express “[a]cceptance, support,
and understanding for the facilitation of . . . identity explo
ration.” §12–245–202(3.5)(b)(I). For a client “undergoing
gender transition,” Ms. Chiles may likewise offer words of
“[a]ssistance.” §12–245–202(3.5)(b)(II). But if a gay or
transgender client seeks her counsel in the hope of chang
ing his sexual orientation or gender identity, Ms. Chiles
cannot provide it. The law forbids her from saying anything
that “attempts . . . to change” a client’s “sexual orientation
or gender identity,” including anything that might repre
sent an “effor[t] to change [her client’s] behaviors or gender
expressions or . . . romantic attraction[s].” §12–245
202(3.5)(a). Colorado disputes none of this; neither does the
dissent. See post, at 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.) (ac
knowledging that Colorado has engaged in viewpoint dis
crimination). -
Comment on US Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids in ~lgbt
R3qn65 Link ParentAll of the following post is written in the spirit of debate. If you don't want to debate - if you were just venting - that's fine, just ignore it. How would you actually fix any of these, though?...All of the following post is written in the spirit of debate. If you don't want to debate - if you were just venting - that's fine, just ignore it.
Being hackish is the norm. Cherry-picking and arguing possibly potential theoreticals that do not apply to the case atually before the court is the norm.
The court sometimes judges narrowly (when it wants) and other times goes way, way beyond the scope of the case at hand. This sometimes leaves clearly unconstitutional laws on the books, and in other cases immediately invalidates them for no reason.
For dealing with precedents, the Supreme court itself follows no standards of consistency.
How would you actually fix any of these, though? Implement a rule saying "the court should only ever judge narrowly?" Clearly, that would not be constructive. Implement a rule saying "the court should never consider possible potential theoreticals?" Again, clearly counterproductive. Implement a rule saying "the most recent precedent is the only one that matters?" Same story.
None of these are inherently bad things. Even together, they're not inherently bad things. I would much rather have a court that was free to use its judgement on when to consider a precedent and when not to, for example, than one that was slavishly obliged to follow rules set in stone. All of this can basically be summed up as "sometimes the Court makes decisions that I disagree with / for reasons I disagree with," and while I'm sympathetic, that's just how democracies work. That's how judicial systems composed of imperfect people work.
The distinction between "speech" and "conduct" the court makes doesn't have any practical merit Any normal, sensible person intuitively, a priori, understands that we all perceive any speech as part of someone's conduct.
The court spent several hundred words explaining why they differentiate between the two. Clearly you disagree and very well, but they do explain why they did that.
Things that your average US resident, average in comprehension, reasoning, social understanding and so on, will never, ever consider in their daily lives. The laws and judgements are wholly unintelligible to them. It is impossible for them to understand and therefore follow regulations if law works this way.
I think this is a reasonable point, but again my question would be what other choice is there? Establishing only laws that the common person can understand is a laudable goal, but the whole point of the Supreme Court is that it answers only the thorniest legal questions. I think their opinions are extremely readable given the weight of their decisions, and I genuinely don't know how they could make it any easier to read. And to be very pointed here, the Court's judgement returned the decision to lower courts, meaning that this opinion had no bearing on regulations to be read by normal people - it is aimed at other legal professionals.
Should a self-claimed "therapist" have to follow medical safety standards when treating children if that goes against their freedom of speech? Obviously, for the sake of patients.
The court agrees in general and specifically discussed that they may have ruled differently if the case dealt with anything other than speech, and Justice Kagan added in her concurring opinion that the court may have ruled differently if Colorado had enacted a content-based law instead of a viewpoint-based law.
But arbitrarily, the courts somehow find that hate speech isn't part of these obvious non-mentioned, disallowed types of speech...
It's not arbitrary. The court has written tens of thousands of words explaining their decisions on hate speech. You disagree, clearly, and I understand why. But it's not arbitrary.
-
Comment on US Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids in ~lgbt
R3qn65 Link ParentThis is a little more nuanced than I think you're giving it credit for. In many cases parents have an obligation to do things their children don't want. In any event that's not what the Court was...It's crazy that rights of US parents supposedly means the right to destroy the lives of their kids without impunity and potentially against the will of their kids too. "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" is no more. Crazy shift.
This is a little more nuanced than I think you're giving it credit for. In many cases parents have an obligation to do things their children don't want. In any event that's not what the Court was deciding. I've posted a lot below because I love the beauty of the way the Court writes opinions, but the tl;dr is that the Court found that while there might be basis to prohibit physical conversion therapy, Colorado's law [also] applies to speech and speech alone, and is therefore unconstitutional because it permits speech in one direction but not the other. The court specifically noted that a state also could not ban talk therapy designed to affirm a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity.
[...] The question before us is a narrow one. Ms. Chiles does
not question that Colorado’s law banning conversion ther
apy has some constitutionally sound applications. See Brief
for Petitioner 53. She does not take issue with the State’s
effort to prohibit what she herself calls “long-abandoned,
aversive” physical interventions. Id., at 10. Instead, Ms.
Chiles stresses that she provides only talk therapy, employ
ing no physical techniques or medications. Yet, she argues,
Colorado’s law still applies to her, prescribing what she may
say in “voluntary counseling conversations” with her cli
ents. Id., at 50. And because that application of the law
strikes at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections
for free speech, she contends, it warrants considerably more
searching scrutiny than the rational-basis review the Tenth
Circuit applied in this case or the intermediate-scrutiny re
view some other lower courts have employed in cases like
hers. Id., at 38; see, e.g., King, 767 F. 3d, at 237. We agree.
To explain why, we begin by outlining the relevant First
Amendment principles that govern us before discussing
how they apply here.
[...]
Next, and nearly as clear to our eyes, Colorado seeks to
regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’s speech. When it comes
to issues of human sexuality, some of her clients “are con
tent with” their sexual identity and orientation and want
help only “with social issues [or] family relationships.” Id.,
at 207a, 214a. But other clients seek her counsel on how to
“reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change
sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony
with [their] bod[ies].” Id., at 207a. And in those cases, Col
orado regulates how Ms. Chiles may respond. Under its
law, she may not speak in any way that attempts to change
a client’s “sexual orientation or gender identity”—including
a client’s “behaviors or gender expressions”—or in any way
that seeks to “eliminate or reduce” a client’s “sexual or ro
mantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same
sex.” §12–245–202(3.5)(a).
Doubtless, Colorado sees things differently. The State in
sists, and the Tenth Circuit agreed, that its law does not
“regulate expression” at all, only “conduct,” “treatment,” or
a “therapeutic modality.” Brief for Respondents 2, 36–37,
47; 116 F. 4th, at 1208. As a result, Colorado reasons, its
law triggers no more than rational-basis or intermediate
scrutiny review. Brief for Respondents 42–44. But the
State’s premise is simply mistaken. In many applications,
the State’s law banning “conversion therapy” may address
conduct—such as aversive physical interventions. But
here, Ms. Chiles seeks to engage only in speech, and as ap
plied to her the law regulates what she may say. Her
speech does not become conduct just because the State may
call it that. Nor does her speech become conduct just be
cause it can also be described as a “treatment,” a “therapeu
tic modality,” or anything else. The First Amendment is no
word game. And the rights it protects cannot be renamed
away or their protections nullified by “mere labels.”
NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 429 (1963).
Our precedents have long made that much clear. Califor
nia faulted Mr. Cohen for the “conduct” of wearing an offen
sive jacket. Cohen, 403 U. S., at 16. The federal govern
ment insisted that its law banning support to terrorists
regulated “conduct” even as applied to the written and spo
ken advice of professionals like lawyers and doctors.
Holder, 561 U. S., at 10, 26. But the effort to recast speech
as conduct failed in those cases—and it must here too. -
Comment on US Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids in ~lgbt
R3qn65 Link ParentFrom the article, [emphasis added]. Kagan, a liberal justice, was writing in support of the decision.From the article,
A state could similarly not ban talk therapy designed to affirm a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, Kagan wrote. “Once again, because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward,” she wrote.
[emphasis added]. Kagan, a liberal justice, was writing in support of the decision.
-
Comment on How to tolerate annoying things in ~health.mental
R3qn65 LinkThis is really good! I was fascinated by how similar acceptance therapy is to stoicism. They're basically indistinguishable (if you don't count all the "inner soul" and "rational universe" stuff...This is really good! I was fascinated by how similar acceptance therapy is to stoicism. They're basically indistinguishable (if you don't count all the "inner soul" and "rational universe" stuff in stoicism.)
I have also found that personally I stopped being bothered by most little stuff after experiencing bigger stuff. Not that I would wish my experiences on everybody, but I do think there's something to be said for perspective. Mission trips, WWOOFing, the American Peace Corps, etc.. there are a lot of ways to get exposed to just how difficult life can be in a way that I think can often be adaptive and helpful.
-
Comment on Air Canada CEO will retire this year after his English-only crash message was criticized in ~transport
-
Comment on Air Canada CEO will retire this year after his English-only crash message was criticized in ~transport
R3qn65 Link ParentPhrased differently, that's less than half. To return to my catalan example, the rate is 97% speak Spanish and 99% understand it. Perhaps there are good reasons for this, and there are analogues:...Nearly a majority of all québécois people can hold a conversation in english,
Phrased differently, that's less than half. To return to my catalan example, the rate is 97% speak Spanish and 99% understand it.
Perhaps there are good reasons for this, and there are analogues: well under half of walloon belgians also speak Flemish. But nonetheless it is not crazy to suggest that quebecois do not often learn English: in fact statistically that is correct in a literal sense.
-
Comment on Air Canada CEO will retire this year after his English-only crash message was criticized in ~transport
R3qn65 Link ParentIf you don't mind me saying, you guys seem fairly unique in that french-speaking Canadians often don't learn English whereas in Europe most citizens tend to learn multiple national languages....If you don't mind me saying, you guys seem fairly unique in that french-speaking Canadians often don't learn English whereas in Europe most citizens tend to learn multiple national languages. Basically all Catalans speak Spanish, for example. Begrudgingly, perhaps, but speak it nonetheless.
I think it's that aspect that I don't really understand.
-
Comment on Air Canada CEO will retire this year after his English-only crash message was criticized in ~transport
R3qn65 Link ParentA video with french subtitles, no less! Right, I agree. This was the CEO’s initial response: And I’ve got to say, I find that pretty reasonable… which is why I’m hoping a quebecois can step in and...this guy is losing his job because he didn't fumble through a condolences video shot in a language he does not speak?
A video with french subtitles, no less!
Right, I agree. This was the CEO’s initial response:
“I am deeply saddened that my inability to speak French has diverted attention from the profound grief of the families and the great resilience of Air Canada’s employees, who have demonstrated outstanding professionalism despite the events of the past few days,” Rousseau said in a statement.
“Despite many lessons over several years, unfortunately, I am still unable to express myself adequately in French. I sincerely apologize for this, but I am continuing my efforts to improve.”
And I’ve got to say, I find that pretty reasonable… which is why I’m hoping a quebecois can step in and share an alternative perspective. I have some familiarity with how militant Quebec is about the use of French, but I’ve never really understood why.
Proton is headquartered in Switzerland.