adamzerner

It doesn't intend to provide such guidelines nor give out a license to cooperate with anyone.

I think this comment[1] from the post's author does a good job of answering this:

> I would word the intended message as "whether or not someone shares our values is not directly relevant to whether one should cooperate with them". Moral alignment is not directly relevant to the decision; it enters only indirectly, in reasoning about things like the need for enforcement or reputational costs. Monstrous morals should not be an immediate deal-breaker in their own right; they should weigh on the scales via trust and reputation costs, but that weight is not infinite.*

> I don't really think of it as "pro-cooperation" or "anti-cooperation"; there is no "pro-cooperation" "side" which I'm trying to advocate here.

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/o4cgvYmNZnfS4xhxL/working-wi...

Hm. I'm interested in hearing more about the specific scenarios where this sort of tool is useful.

I skimmed through the HN comments and see that it can be used for adding diagrams to code comments. But what else? Slack, Jira, READMEs, SMS, Signal etc all allow you to include pngs.

That's a really cool app. What JavaScript framework did you use?

I strongly disagree. Relative to other books, maybe it is on the expensive side. But relative to the value you get from it, I think it is incredibly low.

One way to think about it is in terms of how much you value your time. If you value your time at $25/hr and this book saves you more than 4 hours of time learning UI design, it is worth it.

Another way to think about it is in terms of ROI. As someone in the tech industry I think that having these skills is likely to pay off way more than $99. Not in a legible way -- it's not like anyone will ever say to you "I see you have these UI design skills, here's a $5,000 raise." But I believe that the skills will ultimately shine through and improve your ability to get jobs and make more money.

Also, in practice, if you're in the tech industry, there's probably a good chance that you can get your employer to pay for it.

I have linked to this so many times over the years. Very cool to see it on the front page.

Interesting. Thanks for the comment.

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble understanding though. The furthest I got with math is calculus. I'd love to hear a more ELI5 description of what you said. Something that doesn't require prior knowledge of abstract algebra. (I recognize that's a big/difficult ask. No obligation or anything ofc.)

That makes sense to me that in these two particular situations they have leverage. But what if they don't have enough board seats and you also aren't looking to raise a subsequent round? It sounds like then they don't really have leverage, right? If so, it seems easy enough to guard against the risk that VCs end up with too much leverage over you.

I've never understood why React components are considered to be pure. The output is not just a function of the props, it's also a function of the state (as in `useState`) and context (as in `useContext`).

Taking Eric Normand's course Beginning Clojure (https://ericnormand.podia.com/beginning-clojure).

As someone with most of their experience in JavaScript and Ruby, I really like how Clojure is just so _different_. It's like someone who speaks English learning Chinese instead of a similar language like Spanish. I think doing that opens your mind and teaches you more than if you learned something that is "more of the same". Similar to how it is useful to learn about other fields instead of continuing to grind away at "more of the same" within your field.

This strikes me as overly cynical. A pendulum swung too far. Yes, someone who takes "we don't want to change a thing" at face value is probably overconfident. OTOH, someone who says that the old culture "ceases to exist" is underconfident, I would wager. Reality is somewhere in the middle.

This advice boils down to "be the best of the best" because you'd only go out of your way for someone if they're that good.

I don't think people who haven't reached that bar are necessarily doing something "wrong". It takes hard work to reach it and some people prioritize other things in life over hustling. Others simply don't have the talent to reach it.

I disagree. The question at hand is how we should update our beliefs in response to the evidence of Zuck making the statement. Given the priors of P(M|R) and P(M|~R), it tells us that we shouldn't really update. Different priors would lead to a different update.

Sometimes this sort of thing happens where our priors don't allow for a belief update in response to evidence. For example, does me writing this comment change your best guess as to whether my favorite color is blue? That depends on what you think of P(favorite color blue | comment) and P(favorite color blue | ~comment). Both of those are probably the same right? If so, my comment doesn't allow you to update.

This excerpt from http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/20 is relevant:

  Professor Quirrell looked at Harry. "Mr. Potter," he said solemnly, with only a slight grin, "a word of advice. There is such a thing as a performance which is too perfect. Real people who have just been beaten and humiliated for fifteen minutes do not stand up and graciously forgive their enemies. It is the sort of thing you do when you're trying to convince everyone you're not Dark, not -"

  "I can't believe this! You can't have every possible observation confirm your theory! "

  "And that was a trifle too much indignation."

  "What on Earth do I have to do to convince you? "

  "To convince me that you harbor no ambitions of becoming a Dark Lord?" said Professor Quirrell, now looking outright amused. "I suppose you could just raise your right hand."

  "What?" Harry said blankly. "But I can raise my right hand whether or not I -" Harry stopped, feeling rather stupid.

  "Indeed," said Professor Quirrell. "You can just as easily do it either way. There is nothing you can do to convince me because I would know that was exactly what you were trying to do. And if we are to be even more precise, then while I suppose it is barely possible that perfectly good people exist even though I have never met one, it is nonetheless improbable that someone would be beaten for fifteen minutes and then stand up and feel a great surge of kindly forgiveness for his attackers. On the other hand it is less improbable that a young child would imagine this as the role to play in order to convince his teacher and classmates that he is not the next Dark Lord. The import of an act lies not in what that act resembles on the surface, Mr. Potter, but in the states of mind which make that act more or less probable."

  Harry blinked. He'd just had the dichotomy between the representativeness heuristic and the Bayesian definition of evidence explained to him by a wizard.

Yes, thank you! I appreciate that. I should have elaborated in my OP.

https://arbital.com/p/bayes_rule/ has some great follow up info.

I think a Bayesian perspective is helpful here. 1) How likely is it that Zuck makes that statement if he feels like he is responsible? 2) How likely is it if he doesn't feel responsible? I think the answers to those questions are quite similar, in which case hearing the statement doesn't actually tell us much.

The idea here reminds me of one of my favorite blogs posts ever: https://justinjackson.ca/words.html

I think you'd find the books Digital Minimalism and ADHD 2.0 useful. The former talks about how digital maximalism, for lack of a better term, leads to a lot of what you're experiencing. And the latter is written by a world renowned expert in ADHD. My personal takeaways from reading it were: it's a spectrum not binary; it has its pros and cons; there are things you could do to mitigate it; it's not a deficit of attention it's a matter of controlling it.

How did you handle design stuff? It looks pretty good! I'm a programmer without design training and always end up using Bootstrap.

Related: Bring Back the Sabbath (https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/bring-back-the-sabba...)

> However, it's all automated... Also, It's limited to things that can be verified from fitness trackers and other apps thats many people do not use.

That isn't true. You can track progress on a goal manually, as well as automatically. For example, I used to use Beeminder to track how many push ups I did.

There's also https://www.beeminder.com and their competitors (https://blog.beeminder.com/competitors/).