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—probability. Do we really need it? This has been on my mind since 2017, when I finally sat down to think through quantum theory. (/n)

One thing that’s always struck me is how *late* probability theory came in intellectual history. We had integral calculus before we had probability. And probability is insanely simple, mathematically!

I’m tempted to say that probability theory is not, in fact, Lindy. Frequentist probability is (for all the usual reasons) best understood as a heuristic. Bayesian interpretations, by contrast, take the remarkable step of tying it to mental states.

You have to work very hard to convince yourself that beliefs really are “degrees of belief in sets of events” (or whatever). It’s not natural—and I won’t rehearse the whole story about rational choice and decision theory...

So with those critiques in the back of my mind, when I read David Wallace’s decision-theoretic account of the Born Rule I was rather primed to say, hey, so what? Meaning...

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.

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...

The Chanting of following names of Bhagwan Vishnu, immensely helps us in overcoming the obstacles in our daily life.
These names are from Sri Vishnu Sahasranama!
|. "Om Vashatkaaraaya Namaha" : For Success in Business.
||. "Om Aksharaaya Namaha" : For Success in Studies.

|||. "Om Bhuthabhavanaya Namaha" : For Good Health.
|V. "Om Paramaathmane Namaha" : For Self Confidence.

Src: VAK magazine from Chilkur Balaji Temple, Hyderabad - Sri @csranga
#SanatanaDharma #SanatanaSanskriti #Sattology

One needs to chant the following slokas 28 times to get rid of certain problems in life.
Om Hrushikesaya Namah - For Overcoming Bad habits
Om Vashatkaaraya Namah - For Success in Business, Interviews, visa interviews, building relationships

Om Srimate Namah - For Handsome appearance & wealth
Om Aksharaya Namah - For Education & better financial strength
Om Paramatmane Namah - For self employed people, for promotions and success in games.
Om Putatmane Namah - To remove mental stress & for mental peace

Om Sarmane Namah - For Job Satisfaction
Om Bhutadaye Namah -To amend soured friendship or any personal relationship
Om Dhatre Namah - For issueless couple
Om vidhatre Namah - Pregnant Ladies to Chant for healthy babies.
Chant the following 108 times :

@FeistyLibLady @jamie_raskin @buzz\_chronicles @buzz\\\_chronicles @buzz_chronicles save as category @pdfmakerapp grab @pdfmakerapp grab this @readwiseio save @readwiseio save thread @threader compile summarize @Threadreaderapp unroll please @ttttreads unroll @unrollthread.com @SaveToBookmarks