alicemaz

the idea that the state is purely a construct of laws enforced by threat of violence is closer to legalism and not something xunzi favors. he sees law and punishment as a last resort for eliminating the minority of people who can't be handled any other way, but trying to rule principally on the basis of coercion is doomed to failure. one of his essays is an extended lecture on why the qin state (to become the qin dynasty) will be overthrown unless they stop trying to govern this way

for xunzi the main tool to run the state is that nebulous word "ritual." roughly this means the government should behave virtuously to inspire civic duty and pride, encourage people to cultivate themselves and behave properly in the context of their personal relationships, and use the tools of civic religion (in his time sacrifical rites, sumptuary laws, military ceremonies) to impress people with majesty rather than instill fear. on the mundane end it should make punishments light, lower taxes, handle natural disasters, and maintain a military that mostly fights defensive or just wars. through this he believes people will mostly act virtuously through a felt sense of obligation to and appreciation for each other, ie social trust and social responsibility

there are legitimate points of criticism though, I think the main ones from a western individualist democratic perspective would be that he considers a hierarchical (albeit strictly meritocratic) social structure to be absolutely essential, and that the confucian social network style behavior regulation may depend inherently on social shame, which tends to be smothering

xunzi's dim view of human nature is superficially similar to hobbes (and both came from similar times of brutal civil war) but while hobbes says "and the people have to agree to give absolute power to a dictator" xunzi says "and the people need a model for how to be better"

any confucian system is necessarily grounded in virtue, so you still have the classic problem of "what if the ruler isn't virtuous." I do think this is fundamentally unsolvable though. at the end of the day no clever government structure can work around the fact that whoever holds the final say is ultimately sovereign. checks and balances evaporate in times of crisis and we've just been lucky most of the presidents so far who got that supreme authority (lincoln and fdr being the most notable) were relatively virtuous

I actually have been going to church lately. I think the orthodox take on holy tradition comes very close to what xunzi means by ritual, but xunzi applies it to running a state as well

for me, the value of the xunzi isn't that it's old or that it's eastern, but that it's a sophisticated text which describes a system of morality, statecraft, and international relations which I largely (but don't entirely) agree with

the period he came from was extremely intellectually fertile, and you can find advocates for everything from rational totalitarianism to postmodern anarchism, ethical egoism, hippie utilitarianism, and jeffersonian pastoralism. I think an "east vs west" lens doesn't really capture it well, because the codification of what we would consider "eastern" took place long after this period, over the course of many centuries

there are things xunzi gets wrong, and after I finish writing commentaries on the essays by him I think are most important, I'll probably write a critique on that. I think of him more as a starting point than an ending point

I don't think this is a good comparison because there's so much about language that's subjective or dependent on context. if you could translate something with perfect denotation, you still need a human touch for connotation. the nuances of word choice and sentence structure that give something a flavor of emotionality, or cool logic, or confidence, or aloofness, etc. to say nothing of localization, how to handle meter, all the various tradeoffs a translator has to make because translation is inherently lossy. games don't have any of these problems, you either win or you don't

I think ai will prove "good enough" for most applications in the near future, but this won't eliminate human translation (or journalism, or copywriting, or whatever you might want to apply similar technology/techniques to). but it may well eliminate the bottom 80%

so many comments arguing about what everyone in aggregate is morally obligated to abstain from or morally permitted to partake in. meanwhile the article itself is just about what people end up doing. "the government closed the gyms. lots of people want to exercise together and/or with expensive bulky equipment so they make illegal gyms." no amount of ethics lawyering is going to change this

honestly I think the phased reopenings are partly to blame, once you say "this is important enough, that isn't" everyone wants to do their things and disparage other people's things. if they closed the gyms here again, I'd find an illegal one. if they closed the restaurants, or the churches, or the schools, I wouldn't care. but for the people who derive existential fulfillment from their religion, or can't tolerate taking care of their children 24/7, or [insert reason why people care about restaurants, I honestly don't understand the upside anymore], my desire to go to my gym is selfish and wrong but their need for their thing is inherently good and right

not to mention the fact that most of the country isn't locked down, and there's no internal borders, and most people didn't take lockdowns seriously after the first month or two of kumbaya we're all in this together stuff anyway. so your individual actions wouldn't even move the needle. there's a continuum between the hypervigilent closed societies where one person gets it and they shut down the city, and the endemic countries where it's already everywhere anyway so the best you can do is mitigate risk to a tolerable level and go on with your life. new zealand, south korea, taiwan vs. mexico, india, brazil. we're with india and brazil

and I don't think it could have gone any other way. americans are suspicious and callous toward their countrymen and deathly allergic to being told what to do. for better or worse, it's just in our blood. gotta make the best of it

same reason it's hard to steer an ocean liner. death rates dominated the way people thought and talked about this for months. now it's clearer death rates are obviously not so bad, but permanent damage and months-long recoveries and unclear immunity profile are massive unknowns, but the inertia of the previous narrative still overwhelms the minority trying to course correct. "we're all going to die" "no we're going to be fine" is much easier to latch onto than "it's more complicated than that and we don't really know." especially since most people got sick of lockdown and many are in grave economic danger because of it. people are doing a mental calculus of "well I'll probably be fine so I think we should open back up" and change their arguments to suit the conclusion they've decided on

yea my gyms here (texas) have been really good about this, either mandatory masks or open air, mandatory distancing, wipe everything down (my muay thai gym got like a metal exterminators tank for disinfectant they just spray everything with), etc etc. the article makes the point well, that if you close everything down, people will just do it anyway, so it's better to just have it in the open and under control and punish bad actors when they crop up

local gyms (as opposed to chain/bigbox) tend to be extremely tight-knit communities, which means people want to keep each other safe and will go out of their way to do it, within reason. most people don't care about everyone in their city in abstract, but they do care about members of groups they derive camaraderie from. hell of a lot safer than reopening restaurants, imo

people who act like joggers are the real threat mostly don't exercise, just as people who say things like "I don't understand why people need to get together" mostly are introverts, people who think the anti-lockdown protestors are lunatics generally don't own brick and mortor businesses, etc. people are scared and want someone to blame, ideally someone who isn't like them. and it's naturally much easier to see the things you do as essential, but the things you don't do as nonessential

it's an extremely poor attempt at a joke about consciousness

could call it the death sea

the commonly accepted estimate for intersex conditions is 1.7% of lives births, via https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11534012/ from this basis it's not much of a stretch to imagine the reality is that there's a greater spectrum of sex difference that is illegible because it hasn't been medicalized. certainly seems like a more plausible explanation than "ok ok, so there's people who don't fit into our perfect platonic ideal categories, but other than the 1.7% of weirdos the categories are still perfect"

it's god of the gaps thinking, people are addicted to drawing clean lines around discrete categories as a vestige of modernism. taxonomy brain. we don't have good ways to say "there are two major clustering points, which most people are roughly close enough to one or the other to call them that, but there's enough overlap and so many dimensions that it makes drawing clean boundaries impossible"

I suspect as gene sequencing gets commoditized and personalized medicine actually becomes practical, we'll find a lot more cases where it makes sense to analyze people on the basis of their individual traits rather than what broad groups we can class them under

this has been a contentious argument for at least half a decade that I've seen, and I won't rehash it here, but the magic words to google if you want to read more are "truscum" and "theyfab"

previous poster's claim is a common piece of folk wisdom that ultimately stems from this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16298429/ 2005, n=187. the authors are blanchardites so the language they use is needlessly confusing, but they find 107.3 mean iq among the male-attracted trans women, 121.7 among the female-attracted

interestingly while pulling this up I also found this one from 1967(!) https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2... n=34, which found half in the 110-119 range and eight over 140

when it comes to this topic, "sex" "gender" "male" "female" "man" "woman" etc etc are overloaded with contradictory meanings by people trying to make sneaky ontological arguments. unless I'm specifically talking about the signifier itself, I don't really care about these kinds of games, so I just try to say unambiguous things

anyway aside from language legerdemain, the word "sex" is also used to refer to what sex you're legally designated as, which is only loosely coupled to biology by now

I presume this is a consequence of the datasets they had to work off but it is really frustrating that they have one catchall "transgender and gender-diverse" category, segmenting by birth sex or particular gender identified with would be interesting/valuable

oh interesting. I've had a pet theory for awhile now re: trans/autism comorbidity that they're better thought of as symptoms (among others! op's link notes higher incidence of every surveyed mental disorder) of some underlying brain abnormality, rather than being tangled up in some causal relationship with each other. had not heard of gender incoherence theory before

definitely worth doing. would be a massive undertaking. I'm not webdev enough to comment intelligently on _how_ to do it, but I think the general _what_ to do is something like... a system that is simple and internally coherent, designed specifically to a) court devs to build on it instead, and b) enable all the optimizations that have eluded browser vendors so far because the existing standards are so absurdly complicated. "parallel layout engine" and "a tab doesn't use multiple gigs of ram" are good for starters

then you make a browser that is much faster for sites written in the new thing and build in blink for fallback. also make something in the same niche as electron, but only using the new thing. win devs over and try to cultivate another "this site best viewed in" phenomenon. gradually demote the existing paradigm to second-class status

the important thing is you probably need a well-heeled patron but you don't need to win over the existing browser vendors. (tbh I'm surprised facebook hasn't tried this yet, they'd benefit immensely from it even aside from being able to stick it to google)

make something better and people will gradually switch. reaching non-technical types isn't as hard as it's made out to be, there was a point where every early adopter geek type was going out of their way to install chrome (and firefox before that!) on their parents' and friends' computers for them. and if people switch, other browsers will have to follow

of course it's also likely that all the problems that necessitate a switch will come back even worse after. google made a js engine that was 1000x faster so people made sites that were 10000x slower. google sandboxed tabs so a bad site wouldn't crash the whole browser, and now complicated sites crash constantly because there's less consequences to it. but hey you have to imagine sisyphus happy after all

I don't mean asking technical questions, which I agree is often easier to do over text, not least because you can cite line numbers and include code snippets etc. I mean getting favors, demanding concessions, strategizing, comparing notes, etc. especially if you're running a project (as I was) and need buy-in and deliverables from people in different reporting lines (I was eng with an asterisk, depending heavily on people in qa and ops), the ability to walk up to their desk and convince them is priceless

there were more than a few times when the schedule slipped by months because someone outside the project delayed something by weeks. those kinds of issues I never had when I was in the office because I could get what we needed through force of personality. but outside, you have to go through process, and process is inefficient

seasoned remote workers might counter the org was dysfunctional (a charge I will not deny, hence why I left) but they don't have solutions other than more process. because remote depersonalizes work interactions, they have to layer on policies and documents. it's fundamentally a bureaucratizing force

a lot of stuff in the twitter thread is eyerolling english undergrad turning everything into a literal symbol for essay points, sort of thing. but it is kinda true that the plot of movie is a morose depressed practically catatonic hacker guy feels trapped and cut off from authentic experience until a symbolic rebirth frees him to grow into the entity he was always meant to be

>No, they haven’t.

https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2015-01-01%20%22the%20m...

yes they have

>The reality is that there is a real advantage in working in person.

it depends what their goals are. having worked in-office and remote for the same company, it's way easier to get shit done in the office. at least if you're reasonably extroverted/persuasive/bold. there are so many times I was able to walk up to someone's desk and spend ten minutes to save multiple weeks of protocol and runaround. partly because it's easier to apply pressure, but also partly because communicating face-to-face is so much higher bandwidth. but if you're remote you're easier to ignore, and a lot of office workers are very good at ignoring people who want to create more work for them

but the flip side is it's way easier for remote workers to fade into the background and hardly do anything. a skilled developer can emulate a mediocre developer while working a fraction of the hours. a skilled manipulator can "work" a fraction of the hours managing expectations and barely produce much of anything. plenty of people will figure out how to automate their jobs and just never tell anyone

there's this idea that remote will benefit introvert/aspie types because it's so word-focused. you have few face-to-face conversations but you write tons and tons. but really, apsie types will produce reams of literal-minded descriptive and often very helpful documentation and discussion, while people-people types will manipulate their image to appear very legibly valuable and come out ahead more often than not

my honest opinion for awhile is that remote is going to a massive efficieny drain on big tech companies and startups doing stuff that's easy to phone in like webdev/saas/whatever, such that if you founded a small committed colo team you could probably outcompete them in whatever domain you want even without any special edge

didn't you use the internet way before you were 13? it boggles my mind why people care about this

there won't be new developers if they don't move the language past its present state. there's no reason for anyone to learn perl except for a job maintaining legacy software at this point, but that could change if they manage to refashion it to attract new interest

that said I don't know what kind of "special training" you need to pick up a new language. I got hired for a perl job despite never having written it. the conversation went something like "can you write c?" "yep." "can you write shell scripts?" "yep." "ok, you can write perl." read what the sigils meant and could write it with minimal competence same day. expertise and nuance can come as you go

I think it makes sense. perl6 was a huge distraction that went on far too long, leaving perl5 to stagnate, and then it came out and hardly anyone had much use for it. now that perl6 isn't "perl" anymore, perl7 is basically a "second chance" at evolving perl5 after it was frozen in amber for over a decade

by loc I've probably written more perl than any other language, maintaining a massive legacy codebase at a previous job. I will probably never write perl again, and the idea of starting a new project in it is unthinkable to me. nevertheless I can see how it could find a new batch of users as a comfy expressive intuitive scripting language, if they can clear out some of the deadwood. it's certainly more suited for that role than python or js. and honestly I doubt it will break much given, as you said, no one running legacy perl ever updates their perl version anyway

the real reason why this is being done probably is that the maintainers love their language and want for it to continue to live rather than die a slow death. I wish them luck

medium had one killer insight, which was that if they dolled up blog posts to look like prestige news site articles, most people would mentally put them in the same category. at one point there was a wave of public figures using medium basically like they use/d the nyt oped section before and after

but they messed up their site chasing a business model, and nyt/wapo/etc basically turned into tech companies and fill the niche that medium wanted to. meanwhile substack mints prestige by emphatically not looking like a news site. medium doesn't really have a place on either end of that anymore

hi! thanks for the kind words aha, always nice to hear people appreciate what I put out. trying to get a bit better than my current average of one post per year lol

yea, it's actually surprising how heavy it is given it's all to provide a veneer of minimalism and simplicity. I run qutebrowser on musl, which is as you might guess not the most stable web experience, but one funny side effect is it makes me acutely aware of what sites are simple and what ones do too much. the three worst sites, that consistently 100% of the time freeze the tab they're opened in, are reddit wapo and medium

have you considered offering it as a cloud platform? we're doing something along these lines, niche scientific software (biological modeling, bioinformatics) as a paid hosted service. still at the prototype stage! so I can't comment on how well the business model actually works yet lol

but the idea is our mathematician will be able to publish whatever novel math she develops, and we may eventually open source the math core as a reference impl, but we'll keep all the cluster management and other supporting infrastructure code proprietary. sort of a "if you want to run it on your desktop, go ahead! if you want to actually scale this up for big jobs, we've done all the legwork already so it's really in your best interests to just pay us." I think open source ideals are good and worthy but from a business perspective, you capture value by providing value that can't be got without you. relying on customer goodwill is particularly difficult because any large org, the people who will feel goodwill toward you and the people who can authorize purchases are in two different departments

also fwiw I think if you wanted to do the model you described in the paper unchanged, gpl is a much better choice than mit. copyleft actually serves as a wonderful poison pill: you can try us out for free, but if you want to ship us, you need to pay for a proprietary license or legal will nail you to the wall. whereas mit, there's no stick. I've seen affero used by several projects for this express purpose: you have to buy a proprietary license because agpl is so onerous you just can't use the code for commercial purposes at all

interesting project btw, I love seeing stuff like this!

honestly I think that's an artifact of how often he is imitated. having read more than my share of seed fund about pages in the past few months, there is particular flavor you encounter over and over again that can only be described like "ah yes, I see you also have read zero to one." heavy emphasis on the transformative over the incremental, hard tech, disinterest in pedigree and traction given a shamanistic insistance that they are uniquely capable of identifying the visionaries of tomorrow, constant reminders they go against the grain and buck consensus, punchy copy talking about bold iconoclasts making the future of tomorrow yadda yadda

the three big aesthetic/intellectual strains of sv thought as I see them are truetype protagonist gleaming tech optimism a la early pmarca blog, folksy practicality a la pg, and dark horse contrarianism a la thiel. leonardo, donatello, raphael (turtles, not painters). but he did originate the kernel of it and can't really be faulted for the imitators

what actually makes him interesting tho is he's a disciple of rene girard, who argued among other things that the basis of socialization and social conflict is mimesis, which goes a long way to explaining his fixation on avoidance of imitation (and makes the raft of imitators that much funnier imo)

the way my and my partners look at this is an infrastructure problem. our hope anyway is we can build tools and methods (better mathematical modeling, better bioinformatics software, faster/more accurate sequencing, eventually standardized gear for continuous process chemistry) that can serve startups of a bioengineering bent while also making it more practical for independent researchers to work outside academia. the biologist of our team is particularly interested in longevity research herself so partly we're trying to make the things that she'd need to do her own research 5-10 years down the line

I'm pessimistic about institutions but optimistic about people. I think the academy is an impediment to a lot of interesting and necessary projects, not just here but in general. risk-averse, prestige-obsessed, heavily bureaucratized. most of the institutions in our society are like this, hollowed out. there's a lot of basic research that needs to be done, so I think the highest leverage thing we can do is knock down barriers to more people being able to do it. route around the institutions