BC LIFE

Saved by @jacobhtml

Simon DeDeo
@SimonDeDeo 2 years, 3 months ago 1599 views

Share See On Twitter

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."

As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018

We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".

I'm always shocked when I go back to my alma mater. If you select for cocktail-party skills you by necessity select against excellence. Conversely, since we know very well that discrimination against minorities and women is real, any lab with any sense has pro-inclusion policies.

If you look for the best, you do better science. Meanwhile, if you're in a humanities department, you do better scholarship: the humanities are fundamentally about the human experience, but the selection for East-coast SLACs and Ivys is even stronger there.

More from Simon DeDeo

Simon DeDeo
@SimonDeDeo

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...

Simon DeDeo
@SimonDeDeo

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.

Advertisement

Simon DeDeo
@SimonDeDeo

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".

Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018

The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?

Simon DeDeo
@SimonDeDeo

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...

Simon DeDeo
@SimonDeDeo

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.

More from Life

Nick Hinton
@NickHintonn

A Conspiracy Thread: Did Chaos Magick Break Reality?

What the hell is going on? Coronavirus, societal collapse, monoliths, aliens, what more do I need to say? Did William S. Burroughs actually achieve his goal of breaking reality? Let me explain.

William S. Burroughs was a member of Peter J. Carroll’s magickal organization, The Illuminates of Thanateros. They practiced chaos magick, a system of magick that denies all fixed models of reality. Basically they are encouraged to believe in whatever reality they want.

Burroughs was also an author who often used the cut-up method to write his novels, a technique that involves cutting up newspapers and magazines, putting the clippings in a hat, and then randomly pulling them out to create sentences.

Burroughs believed the cut-up method was a form of chaos magick that destabilized language, which he claimed was the main control mechanism of reality. Burroughs’ goal was to utterly destroy and dismantle all control systems and he thought his cut-ups could help him achieve this.

Abir Ballan
@abirballan

A little experiment explaining how scientists, doctors and academics have learned not to speak out the truth.
It all starts with 5 monkeys... 1/n

The Five Monkeys Experiment

"An experimenter puts 5 monkeys in a large cage. High up at the top of the cage, well beyond the reach of the monkeys, is a bunch of bananas. Underneath the bananas is a ladder." 2/n

"The monkeys immediately spot the bananas and one begins to climb the ladder. As he does, however, the experimenter sprays him with a stream of cold water. Then, he proceeds to spray each of the other monkeys."
3/n

"The monkey on the ladder scrambles off. And all 5 sit for a time on the floor, wet, cold, and bewildered. Soon, though, the temptation of the bananas is too great, and another monkey begins to climb the ladder." 4/n

"Again, the experimenter sprays the ambitious monkey with cold water and all the other monkeys as well. When a third monkey tries to climb the ladder, the other monkeys, wanting to avoid the cold spray, pull him off the ladder and beat him." 5/n

Advertisement

Mark Roberts
@mr_englishteach

Ok, as promised, here's a thread of my top 15 non-verbal gestures for effective behaviour management:

1. A much neglected oldie, best used when only one or two pupils are still talking:

2. Wiggle that earlobe when you see a rogue off-tasker:

3. A gentle side to side headshake, which says "don't even think about doing what you're thinking of doing":

4. This is more forceful and vigorous than no. 3. It says immediately desist:

Nicholas Clairmont
@NickClairmont1

Stick with me for a story about how the logic of lockdowns can turn into something really sinister.

It begins with a Golden Retriever named Neesha

Neesha and her little pup sibling Harley were lost on an hike, taking in the outdoor air in the Wicklow Mountains.

If you've never been to Ireland, you should understand that these are 1) right near the city where most of the country lives and 2) the most beautiful thing you've ever seen

The dogs had bolted, and the owners had only ben able to find Harley. They thought Neesha was dead. But miraculously, two doctors on a hike in Wicklow found Neesha almost two full weeks later

She lost a third of her body weight, but now she is at home, snuggled up and warm with her family.

Nicolas Cole
@Nicolascole77

[THREAD] How To Find A Mentor (No Matter What Industry You're In)

I have attracted dozens of mentors since I was a teenager. As I've gotten older, I've realized these relationships were the secret to my growth.

Here's how to find mentors of your own 👇👇👇

1/ Don't obsess over finding The Expert.

This is the BIG mistake anyone looking for someone to "mentor them" makes.

All you need is to find someone who knows the very-next-thing you want to learn. Technically, anyone "a little bit further along" can be your mentor.

2/ Start to see everyone around you as A Mentor

- Your co-worker with 1-2 yrs more experience is a mentor
- Your family friend who is always telling "war stories" is a mentor
- Your neighbor, cousin, aunt, uncle who has done what you're trying to do, can all be mentors

3/ Start with 1 question

Mentorship isn't a formal agreement. You don't ask, "Will you be my mentor for life?"

The key is to ask 1 question. See if the person gives you guidance.

Take that guidance. Apply it. Go back and ask a 2nd question. See if they reciprocate.

Repeat.

4/ True mentorships are mutually beneficial

Mentors want to share what they know with people who listen carefully & apply their wisdom.

Why?

It allows the mentor a "2nd chance" at walking their path, imagining what might have happened if they'd known what they know now, sooner

You May Also Like

Jared Spool
@jmspool

A common misunderstanding about Agile and “Big Design Up Front”:

There’s nothing in the Agile Manifesto or Principles that states you should never have any idea what you’re trying to build.

You’re allowed to think about a desired outcome from the beginning.

It’s not Big Design Up Front if you do in-depth research to understand the user’s problem.

It’s not BDUF if you spend detailed time learning who needs this thing and why they need it.

It’s not BDUF if you help every team member know what success looks like.

Agile is about reducing risk.

It’s not Agile if you increase risk by starting your sprints with complete ignorance.

It’s not Agile if you don’t research.

Don’t make the mistake of shutting down critical understanding by labeling it Bg Design Up Front.

It would be a mistake to assume this research should only be done by designers and researchers.

Product management and developers also need to be out with the team, conducting the research.

Shared Understanding is the key objective

I\u2019d recommend that the devs participate directly in the research.

If the devs go into the first sprint with a thorough understanding of the user\u2019s problems, they are far more likely to solve it well.
— Jared Spool (@jmspool) November 18, 2018

Big Design Up Front is a thing to avoid.

Defining all the functionality before coding is BDUF.

Drawing every screen and every pixel is BDUF.

Promising functionality (or delivery dates) to customers before development starts is BDUF.

These things shouldn’t happen in Agile.

SwiftOnSecurity
@SwiftOnSecurity

I think about this a lot, both in IT and civil infrastructure. It looks so trivial to “fix” from the outside. In fact, it is incredibly draining to do the entirely crushing work of real policy changes internally. It’s harder than drafting a blank page of how the world should be.

The tragedy of revolutionaries is they design a utopia by a river but discover the impure city they razed was on stilts for a reason.
— SwiftOnSecurity (@SwiftOnSecurity) June 19, 2016

I’m at a sort of career crisis point. In my job before, three people could contain the entire complexity of a nation-wide company’s IT infrastructure in their head.

Once you move above that mark, it becomes exponentially, far and away beyond anything I dreamed, more difficult.

And I look at candidates and know-everything’s who think it’s all so easy. Or, people who think we could burn it down with no losses and start over.

God I wish I lived in that world of triviality. In moments, I find myself regretting leaving that place of self-directed autonomy.

For ten years I knew I could build something and see results that same day. Now I’m adjusting to building something in my mind in one day, and it taking a year to do the due-diligence and edge cases and documentation and familiarization and roll-out.

That’s the hard work. It’s not technical. It’s not becoming a rockstar to peers.
These people look at me and just see another self-important idiot in Security who thinks they understand the system others live. Who thinks “bad” designs were made for no reason.
Who wasn’t there.

Advertisement

William
@wimgz

Making a thread of makers & entrepreneurs who inspired me, and what they taught me.
#thread
👇

Strong marketing game, super hard work, can stream for 24 hours and currently leading a new streamer movement with the #24hrstartup challenge.
Make it bigger than yourself.
👉 @thepatwalls

Made the awesome https://t.co/lBYn9nP3KJ which works perfectly and saved me hours and hours.
Make a simple, helpful product.
👉 @gvrizzo

Making the stylish @threader_app looking for maximum integration with Twitter (it might even become part of Twitter one day...)
Raise the bar for quality, look for seamless integrations.
👉 @marie_dm_ + @yesnoornext

Successfully monetized a tiny social network @wip without screwing his users, focusing on the maker community.
A small engaged community is enough.
👉 @marckohlbrugge

$Emperor\U0001f451$

Emperor👑
@EmperorBTC

Technical Analysis Masterclass- Part 2

'Entering the trade'

Entering a trade without ascertaining a certain things is gambling.

In this masterclass we will learn the pre-requisites to enter a trade.

DON'T ENTER A TRADE WITHOUT DETERMINNG THE FOLLOWING.

Please share.

We understand what reward to risk (popularly called risk to reward) is.
It will be denoted by R:R.

We will also try to bust a few myths about R:R and how to avoid losing trades.

Before entering a trade, you need to determine 3 things.

1. Entry trigger
2. Stop loss
3. Target

1. Entry trigger = Reasons for entering a trade. There could be multiple reasons or a single reason for entry.

Generally a set of reasons AKA confluence is a higher probability trade and a generally a safer entry.

Example of an entry trigger.

2. Stop Loss.

The price in the opposite direction of the trade where the trade is exited, at a loss.

At this level, the reason for the entry becomes invalidated according to TA and the price can then move in the opposite direction, probabilistically.

3. Target is the possible price level that the asset might touch based on previous trends or confluence AND where a possible reversal could occur.

Target is the next path of least resistance from where the price might reverse.

We will always ONLY use TA to determine all 3.

bby
@Tspoisgreat

I can’t wait for twitter to let me folder my bookmarks