BC TECH
Saved by @jacobhtml

I’m quoted in this, which does about as good a job overviewing the topic as a New York Times profile can be expected to.

 Major oversights in it as I see.

First, It does not acknowledge the fact that Yudkowsky is, at heart, a complete crank. This remains, to my mind, crucial to understanding the rationalist community’s influence on the world: they’re sci-fi writers being mistaken for scientists.
You can’t really understand the harmful effects of SSC until you realize that it’s part of a larger movement of bullshit artists serving as cult leaders to the techbros.
Second, and more importantly, it never really explains the harm that’s being done by Scott Siskind and his followers. It comes close, noting that “SJWs” were the only group not welcome in SSC, but it doesn’t capture the harm of that because it doesn’t unpack the term.
What is meant in practice when “SJWs” aren’t welcome in a space is that marginalized people speaking of the harm they experience are silenced.

That’s it. That’s the meaning.
When Sam Altman complains that concerns about sexism and racism inhibit innovation, the point that really needs to be made, and that Cade should have asked for a response quote on, is that innovations unconcerned with sexism and racism hurt people.
Like, what are we talking about here in practice? We’re talking about image identification algorithms that mistake black people for gorillas. And fixing that by just removing gorillas as a thing the algorithm can identify. https://t.co/gyP3WZ4VSH
We’re talking about financial algorithms that bring back redlining. https://t.co/dHHISoAjRJ
We’re talking about social media moderation that is trivially weaponized against women and trans women. (I’d link, but you’re already on the site I’m talking about.)
And we’re talking about shit like Boston Dynamics, where the use case for their cool robot videos is unmistakably police robots, being developed by fucking billionaires who think the Black Lives Matter movement oppresses them.
The message of SSC was that ignoring people who say “these things cause me harm” was virtuous, and that the people you really had to take seriously and think about were fucking nazis.
And the fact that the tech industry viewed that as an absolutely essential message to hear is horrifying on a scale that Cade’s article ultimately only gestures at.
The real headline is “Silicon Valley would rather listen to nazis than feminists.”
I focused on the macro level in this thread because it’s what the NYT article focused on, but having read accounts of people’s abuse within the “rationalist” community, it is just as toxic a cesspool on the micro level as the macro. https://t.co/e74k2bd13S
Anyway. If you like this thread, I have a whole book about the rationalist movement, white supremacists, and the fact that we are all fucked and the reasons why are very stupid. It is, if I may say so, pretty good. https://t.co/DXtw6oLIyw

More from Tech

Venkatesh Rao
Venkatesh Rao
@vgr
There are only 3 real challenges to free speech at the tech level a) the need for CDNs at scale b) distortions of net neutrality c) nation-state firewalls.

All other claims are about social governance on private sites, where applying free speech doctrine is a stretch at best

Baseline free speech has expanded modestly since 1776 or whatever your reference point is.

About 20% beyond core case of government-critical speech in formally public spaces and media I'd say.

You can (for example) have more kinds of conversations in a bar without getting punched or kicked out by other patrons or management. You can teach more things in colleges than 100 years ago.

That's a genuine de facto increase in practical, informal free speech/expression.

But online free "speech" is, as @reneed has pointed out, not an expansion of free speech at all, but an expansion of reach. It is like the secondary freedom of the press to print as many copies as they can afford, not primary freedom to say what they want

If a newspaper wants to print more copies it has buy more printing equipment and front more upfront costs. Reach for a paper publication is not "free", but a function of desired circulation, which in turn is a function of demand prediction etc. But that logic is obscured online.
TECH
Shaun Russell
Shaun Russell
@_ShaunRussell
"I really want to break into Product Management"

make products.

"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."

Make Products.

"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."

MAKE PRODUCTS.

Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics – https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.


There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.

You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.

But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.

And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.

They find their own way.
TECH
Advertisement
Laurie Voss
Laurie Voss
@seldo
The 2018 State of JavaScript survey is out. They got 20,000 responses and have some delicious, delicious data. I'mma thread in some highlights:

First up: JavaScript flavors. There's TypeScript at 47% adoption, a tad higher than npm's own survey results (which said 46%). npm's survey is coming up again soon and will ask about TypeScript in a lot more detail.


I really, *really* like SoJ's "would not use again" question, which lets people who've abandoned a tech self-identify. This is noticeable in the graph above with Flow users -- 41% of people who've used Flow say they wouldn't use it again.

Now JavaScript frameworks. It's been a full year since npm's survey, so these numbers differ from ours in the directions I expected:
React 65% (vs. 60%)
Vue 29% (vs. 24%)
Ember 5% (vs 4%, I was expecting a bigger rise)

But there's a shocker in here: Angular.


npm's survey had Angular at 40% last year and SoJ has it at either:
- 58% (if you include those who don't want to use it again)
- 24% (if you count only those who like it)
Since npm's question didn't ask if they intend to *continue* using it I think that might explain this.
TECH
Paul Matzko
Paul Matzko
@PMatzko
The New York Times article about SlateStarCodex is finally out and it is...bad. There's a lot I could parse, but let me just walk you through one paragraph that is so misleading as to be

Take the first sentence of this paragraph. Now, technically the clause--"who proposed a link between race and IQ"--could simply modify "Murray" and have nothing to do w/ SSC.


But 99% of readers are going to assume that the clause actually defines SSC's alignment with Murray. In other words, the author is strongly implying that SSC shares Murray's racist beliefs.

And that would be big(!)...if it were at all true. It is not. Indeed, if you go to the hyperlink, you'll find that SSC's purported "alignment" has nothing to do with Murray's "Bell Curve."

What SSC & Murray agree about is that poverty is partly hereditable and thus very sticky, so much so that the proposition job retraining programs will meaningfully address mass economic disruption is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.
TECH
Robert M. Lee
Robert M. Lee
@RobertMLee
A quick thread on intelligence analysis in the context of cyber threat intelligence. I see a number of CTI analysts get into near analysis paralysis phases for over thinking their assessments or over obsessing about if they might be wrong. (1/x)

Consider this scenario. A CTI analyst identifies new intrusions and based on the collection available and their expertise note that the victims are all banks. Their consumer wants to know when threats specifically target banks (not just that banks are victims).

The CTI analyst has, from their collection, at this time, and based on their expertise enough to make an activity group (leveraging the Diamond Model in this example) that meet's the requirement of their consumer. So what's the problem?

The CTI analyst begins to over think it. "What if I had more collection? Would my analysis change? I really don't *know* they aren't also targeting mining companies in Australia as I don't have collection there."

The analyst knows their analysis is going to be shared. Maybe even public. "What if another team or professional intelligence firm has more collection and ends up noting that it isn't banking specific at all. Banks are victims, not targets. Will my consumer distrust me later?"
TECH

You May Also Like

Patrick McKenzie
Patrick McKenzie
@patio11
A thing which I unironically and enthusiastically believe which is unpopular among smart people of my acquaintance: financial engineering has in the recent past and present contributed substantially to human welfare. We should hope to see more of it.

Maybe more geeks need to meet someone who says “My job is teleporting value across time and space.”

Financial engineering is sort of a squishy term. I don’t primarily mean payments infrastructure or financial rails, although both of those involve substantial engineering.

I mean more “We took a thing and performed some alchemy, and now have a new thing.”

Except instead of alchemy it is generally quite a bit of math, a huge amount of contract law and due diligence, often an impressive amount of ops work, and a dusting of technology that web devs would recognize as such.
ALL
Michael King \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8
Michael King 🇺🇸...
@8MichaelKing
Ever notice how the top niches are centered around health, wealth, and relationships?

There's a deep-rooted psychological (and biological) reason why.

And today, I'm gonna to explain all of it so you can start profiting off of this knowledge 💰💰

*Now, this thread is going to be long and in depth. Make sure to favorite the top tweet now so you can come back to it later.

So. Down to the very core of every living being (humans, dolphins, bacteria, aliens), there are only two drivers:
1. To survive
2. To reproduce

Right off the bat, we know that sex is a primary driver to human behavior.

This would also mean that each gender has its own insecurities regarding sex.

Men have a subconscious fear that their woman will leave them for someone more successful

Women have a fear that their man will leave them for someone younger & better-looking

We can conclude that men are attracted to looks, and women are attracted to status.

This is human nature down to its very core.

Crazy, blue-haired feminists will try to argue and say otherwise.

But, 50 years of feminism DOES NOT OVERRIDE millions of years of evolutionary biology.

Here's a quick visualization exercise so you can see how true all this is...
STARTUPS
Advertisement
foone
foone
@Foone
So I was talking to @gewt about Job: A Comedy of Justice and I came up with a theory that I think explains why Heinlein's late-period work is so kinda-terrible and why I still enjoy it so much


So Heinlein had always been very interesting in the short parts of his novels, like the little snippets inside chapters. He had a very fun writing style, and wrote some fun dialogue with fun characters, right?>
It probably comes from how much of his early stuff was short fiction

And I think what happened with a lot of his longer works is that he'd just start writing fun bits and hope it would end up going somewhere or having a bigger plot by the end. like eventually he'd figure out where this was going, then go back and rewrite it into a cohesive whole

and I'm sure he had editors that'd help this process. No editor would let you publish something as rambly and changing-gears-every-other-chapter as The Number Of The Beast, for example... unless you were God-King Of Science Fiction 1980s Robert Heinlein.

so basically I think what happened is that by the 80s (when he was in his seventies!!) he lost the drive to go back and rewrite and he was too Untouchable for editors to make him.
CULTURE
Daoyu
Daoyu
@Daoyu15
@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
ALL
WORLD OF SANATAN DHARMA
WORLD OF SANATAN DHARM...
@world_sanatan
MINUTE DETAILS ABOUT THE ATTACK ON SHAISTA KHAN AT LAL MAHAL

Remarkable Commando op

A long 🧵 but worth your time

Aurangzeb sent his maternal uncle Shaista Khan with powerful army over 1,50,000 on the request of Badibegum Sahiba, Adilshahi sultanate

1/


Shaista Khan entered Deccan to kill Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj & to destroy his empire. Shahista Khan captured a lot of province and fort of Chakan near Pune.

2/


Till 3 years he gave lot of troubles to the subjects of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and he personally made Lal Mahal his destination to live at , which was the property of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj . Lal Mahal, where Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj spent his childhood.

3/

1. In the April 1663 Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj personally made a surprise attack on Shahista Khan in the Lal Mahal Pune.

2. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj attacked with 300 soldiers at the midnight while Lal Mahal had strong security of 1.5 lac soldiers for Shahista Khan.

4/

3. He entered in Pune, he made a drama of wedding ceremony to enter in Pune near Lal Mahal.

4. During the night they made big hole at the wall of Lal Mahal and entered into the palace.

5/
ALL