Feb 27

Fook No

People’s answers to the question how much use of social media is worth to them reveal a ‘superendowment effect’: They’d pay very little to acquire it, but would have to be paid a lot to let it go.

I’d pay to avoid having to use Facebook. Not sure how much, though. Maybe up to $500 a month if it became mandatory under some authoritarian regime but you could opt out via a fee.

To force me to use Facebook? It’d be a lot. Maybe $10,000 a month, if I were to use it every day and as most people use it, with relatively honest information. I am not sure $10,000 a month would be enough. Maybe more. I’d definitely use it if someone paid me $50,000 a month. So somewhere between $10K and $50K a month would be my required Facebook usage payment.

Feb 27

No Humility Here

This also seems to be babbling, mostly, as far as I can tell.

Among many other mistakes, she is somehow analogizing the scarcity of attention and the need to parcel it out judiciously with the problem of students writing papers. Do professors not realize that in most cases that students must regurgitate in the simplest forms possible what professors “teach” them to have any hope of a good grade? You know, I’ve done the opposite and my grades were not good. In school, you are penalized for thinking for yourself or attempting novel ideas or interpretations. So exactly what did she think those papers would contain, exactly?

I’ve interviewed job applicants, and perceived them all as “bright and impressive”, but found that the vast majority of them could not solve a simple math problem. The ones who could solve the problem didn’t appear any “brighter” in conversation than the ones who couldn’t.

I guarantee that I could not solve that math problem, but I’d also be better at the job assuming I had any training for it than any of the other applicants, and if not I’d be better at it in a few months. Like Ice Cube, in most areas I can mess around and get a triple-double. All except math.

If one prizes writing over math, I bet I could summarize this person’s own work better — more cogently and with more clarity — than they themselves could. And faster, too.

But sure, math is all that matters. Unless the job directly involves teaching math or a lot of high-level math, why does she thinks this matters at all? Academia’s math obsession is completely bizarre. I guess it is because quantification is easy; you can solve the math problem or not. It might not tell you a goddamn thing, but, recursively enough, you can quantify if someone can quantify something.

The main problem with this whole post is that she conflates the ability to detect BS in GPT-2 results with performance on garbage, worthless essays and math problems that the person might not — probably does not — have any training to solve.

It doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s yet more babbling. Where’s the evidence that these ideas have any relation at all?

This is the kind of shit I mean when I say that smart people are just not very smart, in general. Sure, I am certain she is good at her job and all that. But like most people she has the systems thinking capability of a desiccated tadpole — and from reading the rest of her blog, she’s trying! But she’s just not very good at it (as most STEM types are not). She has good intentions, but the end result is no insight. Just babbling.

Feb 26


Nearly everyone, as I’ve noted before, is a climate change denier de facto. If we weren’t, we’d be running around with our hair on fire attempting to avert the coming catastrophe. Why anyone would have kids given what’s coming I haven’t a clue. People just have no idea the severity and scope of what’s ahead.

Obama was a terrible president who made the world much worse. The evidence is everywhere. People are as delusional about Obama as they are about climate change.

Feb 26


I am not too sexy for my shirt, but I am starting to get too big for many of my shirts.

I think it’s the much taller shoulders, mainly. And I am about two inches wider now in the shoulders/arms than I was six months ago.

Feb 26


Yeah. Humans are probably not socially equipped for social media, especially most over-40s, who are the worst of all from what I’ve seen. Though it does seem to have deleterious effects on everyone who uses it, especially if it’s heavy use.

Humans do not have effective social contagion filters and are very desirous of social approval. This worked fine in small communities or bands, where it was necessary for survival. This tendency goes totally haywire in an environment of social media, especially for those who are not mentally resilient or are more extroverted.

If Facebook had never existed the world would be vastly better off.

Feb 26


The next time I don’t do something I am supposed to do at work, I am going to claim Russian conspiracy and see how that goes. It seems to be working well for everyone else, so why not?

Feb 25


Excellence or even making an effort, even if it’s not that good, produces haters. They are unavoidable, inevitable, part and parcel of doing anything. It doesn’t mean you should give up. It means you are probably doing something right.

For instance, at least 80% of Elon Musk haters are that way because he’s undertaking big projects successfully. Yes, there are valid critiques of Musk but these are rarely made. It’s mostly just jealousy, spite, and cupidity.

I was never more despised in my life than when I started attempting to improve myself in early high school. Both my friends and my already-enemies brought it on, hard. Was it worth it? Oh hell yes.

Making an effort, especially in today’s culture, turns you into a target. Enjoy being a target. Those who cannot do themselves gain relative status by tearing down others (explains most of the SJW movement). This attempt at destruction if you face it means you are more likely to be on a productive path.