One thing that goes unremarked about Wikipedia: the vast majority of the content was written over 12 years ago—which means (given turnover) that the editors dominant today were not directly involved in that creation.

So, today, for the first time in 25 (!) years of Apple, I downgraded. From the 2016 MacBook Pro to my 2013, which I had kept in a drawer...

It was pretty simple to do—Apple Time Machine backups let me do it with one click.

That first tweet captures, in two pictures, how badly Apple has “lost the plot” (to quote @wylieprof). On the right is the Apple MagSafe adapter, from 2013. On the left, what I had “upgraded” to.

Thanks, Apple! I really was nostalgic for worrying about yanking my computer off the table.

Oh and I really appreciated not knowing if my computer was charging. What was great was the little whoop sound you used, so that the speaker before me could be informed I was charging my laptop.

On Bayesianism, the Many Worlds Interpretation, and personal identity.

Some thoughts worked out in a letter to a friend, which is the kind of thing you do when off Twitter for a glorious week. (🧵)

“Chance is ignorance”—the Bayesian story; all probabilities represent states of mind, not states of the world. One *could* put (some) chances “in the world”, but let’s take Occam’s Razor seriously...

That the probability of a fair coin coming up heads is 50% simply means that marginalizing (tracing, as the physicists say) over the hidden facts leaves you, nearly, maximally ignorant of the outcome.

Quantum uncertainty (access below!) poses an apparent challenge to this story. There seems to be nothing to be ignorant about when it comes to (say) electron spin—there is nothing “inside” the

The electron is a simple object, in other words. So where does the uncertainty come from? One could follow David Wallace’s wonderful interpretation in terms of chaotic dynamics and decoherence, but let’s see if we can take another route...

Someone tosses a coin ten times; it comes up heads every time. What's the probability it comes up heads on the next toss? (Pretty darn high—part of @nntaleb's work is unprogramming you from your high-school rules of thumb.) Now consider the (related) Gambler's fallacy...

In this case, it's a theory about compensation: the worse one's luck is, the more likely it is to see a reversal. On the surface, it's irrational. The more bad luck you have, the more you accumulate evidence that the system is rigged.

But there's also an anthropic component. If the luck is bad enough, it starts to become inconsistent with your survival. You've accumulated evidence for correlations in the environment, but these correlations (may be) inconsistent with (people like you) being in this environment.

An example. You're in a city where everyone takes public transport. You encounter a string of bad delays. It's reasonable to conclude they'll end—otherwise people wouldn't take public transport. It's unlikely that you happened to show up right when the network collapses.

Of course, that's a bad heuristic in a casino, which relies on a constant influx of losers. But in other environments, particularly with persistent populations and no evidence for sudden changes in the underlying laws, it makes sense.

Donna Strickland, one of this year's Nobel Laureates, was not considered "notable enough" for Wikipedia as late as this May—reported by a number of sites, including the Independent. I dug into this a little. Here's the data—

This is the first deletion, back in 2014. A bit hard to read between the lines, but the basic story that an admin had Stickland's page "speedy deleted"—i.e., deleted without debate. The method was something called Copyright Jujitsu.

In particular, the admin had the page deleted not because of notability, but because it included a photograph of Strickland that had ambiguous copyright status. This is a method that people developed to get rid of content they didn't want, but also didn't want to debate.

"Copyright Jujitsu" because it is usually used against spam from companies; a PR officer uploads promotional material to Wikipedia. Instead of debating whether it's neutral, the admin can say "we'd love to have it, but the material appears to violate your company's copyright".

Usually the PR office and the IP office are separate in a company, and the idea of releasing promotional material under public domain is such a legal nightmare that the PR person goes away.

Boss is always Boss @Mitesh_Engr

Mitesh Sir's FUTURES BREAKOUT TRADES 101:

• How to pick stocks at right time?
• What to look for?
• Importance of BO post consolidation
• How to manage SL
• How to get huge profits
• Multiple Examples

In collaboration with @niki_poojary

Importance of Trading only BO or BD stocks by @Mitesh_Engr Sir: 👇

•Two questions to always ask:

~Why stock is going up/down and when?
~ Who is behind big up/down and when?

• Trade only stocks with Momentum
• Instant results
• Small SL or huge profits

Sir's take on how to Trade: 👇

• Observe fight between buyer & seller
• Position will be created within first 3 hours
• Operators will win
• Just find BO or BD
• Look for huge volume support
• Give company to operators
• ATP importance explained

How to take trade in Breakout/Breakdown stocks by @Mitesh_Engr Sir: 👇

• Check Support & Resistance
• Wait for 2-3 months consolidation
• Surge in volumes
• Trade on 3 min charts
• Small SL
• Keep trailing
• Always pyramid in profit

When and Why to Pyramid? By @Mitesh_Engr Sir

• Adding to winning positions
• Signals of continued strength
• Potentially large profits
• An Example of pyramiding in one of his trades

Here is Editor-in-Chief of the @EpochTimes, @JasperFakkert's response to the slanted hit piece that @Buzzfeed's @HayesBrown put up 2 days ago:

Brown's article at Buzzfeed starts off pretending it's some kind of really off-the-wall notion that Hillary Clinton paid for the creation of the Steele Dossier that was then used to justify the FBI's spying on the Trump campaign & transition team.

After that awful start, he swerves to making accusations that the Epoch Times is connected to the 'cult' Falon Gong.

You can read the article here:

Brown insinuates with no real evidence whatsoever that the Epoch Times is 'Falon Gong-linked'.

The 'evidence' he supplies in his article to 'prove' @EpochTimes is 'Falon Gong-linked is this:

1) the Epoch Times' extensive *news coverage* of China's attempts to wipe out Falon Gong with intense persecution directed at the group since 1999.

2) a reporter *shouting a question in 2006* at then-President George W. Bush about China's persecution of Falon Gong members.

Did Brahma Dev marry his daughter?

NO!

Only a fool who has zero knowledge of Sanatan Dharma would ask such an obscene question. Before making such an idiotic question, understand who is Brahma Dev and Maa Saraswati.

Brahma Dev is the creator of the universe. When a desire for a female companion rose in His heart, He split himself into two halves. His another halve came to be known as Devi Saraswati, and she is his Wife, not his daughter. A Daughter is born when a male and female consummate.

Maa Saraswati is the Goddess of Knowledge. To create something, one needs to possess the knowledge of the process. With the help of Maa Saraswati, Pita Brahma Dev created the universe and all the beings. Through his consciousness, He created 7 Manas Putras, the 7 sages.

The same is the case with other Gods of our Trimurtis. Prabhu Shree Hari Narayan's other half is Maa Laxmi, while Maa Parvati is for Prabhu Mahadev. For Indra Dev, it's Indrayani or Shachi Devi. This is what Ardhanareshwar or Ardhanareshwari is all about.

There is no difference between Prabhu Brahma and Maa Saraswati. They both are the same just like Shree Hari and Maa Laxmi, and Mahadev and Maa Parvati. That is the reason we call our spouse or wife our better half.

Why Beauty Matters

(and how it has been destroyed by "usability")

A short thread...

I want to make clear that this thread *isn't* about returning to the past.

This is strictly about the future.

But we shouldn't simply accept things because "that's the way there are."

The past teaches us that we can do better.

Why does beauty matter?

That sounds like a superfluous question, but in the 21st century it has become a vital one.

Before I try & give you an explanation, however, I think we should define beauty.

Beauty isn't just ornamentation for the sake of it.

That is garishness. That is luxury. That is vanity.

This is *not* beauty:

But compare these two train station bridges.

Both ordinary, everyday things.

One is beautiful, & the other is not.