Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
RT @TheBabylonBee:
Liberals Replace Offensive Term ‘Woman’ With ‘Child Factory Who Bleeds’
babylonbee.com/news/liberals-…
RT @_PauI__:
@abirballan @NickHudsonCT
https://t.co/4PWcvDIO9D
It's the taxpayer that pays for it either way.
New blog post about the problem of "programming in strings": blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/programm…
Nice! Just pre-ordered the hardcover. And it's the #1 new release in epistemology! twitter.com/ToKTeacher/sta…
Cities have doctors and hospitals, nature does not.
The opposite of “nature” isn’t “city” btw. I wasn’t advocating for cities in particular.
This doesn’t say much unless you state the percentage of poor people owning stocks and unless it isn’t high.
And those advancements are a result of that philosophy.
No because I had already granted that the US isn't entirely socialist.
Advancements in science and tech, great business culture and American professionalism are part of it. But it's less about results, more about mindest. Their philosophy values individualism over collectivism.
Can you think of a reason it might be the greatest country on earth?
Those graphics don't refute my points btw.
Like, the US is mostly capitalist and a bit socialist, with the socialist policies gaining more ground over time.
Actually, the greatest. But still we have ever higher taxes, "socialized" education, healthcare, government-monopoly police and army, etc. A country doesn't need gulags or secret police murdering people to be a socialist country, there are different degrees of socialism.
I don't know much about Ireland but yes Europe tends to be more socialist than the US even though Europe today isn't as socialist as the Soviet Union. The US is probably still one of the least socialist countries on Earth, which is partly what makes it one of the greatest.
Happiness isn’t determined genetically so you can be arbitrarily happy if you know how.
@B_Vanderhaegen @crit_rat
I think it’s possible and meaningful but undesirable because it places a claim on other peoples’ resources and may be against their and one’s own preferences. (To be clear, I’m not saying that’s what Sam meant by “duty”, and I may well be wrong anyway!)
@B_Vanderhaegen @crit_rat
Benefit doesn’t imply duty.
Also if one has the knowledge to prevent the other from making progress then you have to cooperate
Why?
@dvassallo @RealNatashaChe
Arbitrarily, because the software can improve the hardware and the environment.
RT @l1berty:
New documentary The Year Earth Changed celebrates the effects of the lockdowns on the natural world, which is at once parochia…
@B_Vanderhaegen @crit_rat
What if they just choose to work on other problems instead (separately or together)? Then knowledge still grows. And if somebody decides he doesn't want to contribute to the growth of knowledge, isn't that okay, too?
@crit_rat
One way I think about narcissism is that the narcissist is unable to realize his fallibility. If there’s a mistake then everyone else must be wrong but no way it’s him. Which could be one measure of being too self-absorbed.
@crit_rat
Why is it a duty to help someone with a shared problem?
@JoeWolfcastle @dvassallo
I haven’t. In exchange I recommend The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch, which is partly about why genes aren’t all that powerful and why ideas are much more powerful (especially chapters 14 through 17).
I was trying to say that our ability to adapt the world around is what makes us happy, and that sabotaging this ability by being more "natural" makes us unhappy.
If we're "wired", how do you explain condoms, celibacy, homosexuality, jumping out of airplanes, fasting, etc?
This isn't true because evo psych isn't true. People are creative: they can form new preferences and improve their environment. Nobody would be happy in our dirty, disease-ridden, foul-smelling, disgusting natural environment, and nobody was when we finally emerged from there.
That strikes as a surface-level purpose of schools. I think the deeper, primary purpose is to get children to systematically neglect their own preferences in favor of others’ preferences.
“They become more concerned with their reputation”
Clearly, but why? Here’s one explanation: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-true…
RT @TitaniaMcGrath:
Teachers who refer to “boys” or “girls” are attempting to radicalise a new generation of bigots. This must stop NOW.
I…
“If imposed, it would be the first time it has been made a crime for an Australian to enter their own country.” twitter.com/nomadcapitalis…
RT @CodeWisdom:
"Programming is not about typing, it's about thinking." - Rich Hickey
If there were any evidence for it, would that make it better as an explanation for whatever it purports to explain?
Yes. I expect much of Popperian epistemology to live on in the first theory of AGI as an approximation.
Isn't that a bit like saying dogs were already evolving when there were only wolves?
Better safe than sorry! Unless you want people to DIE twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/…
Saul: "It's his stomach. Now, where were we..."
Skyler: "Professionalism."
In my new blog post, "Objectivism vs. the Myth of the Framework", I explain why Ayn Rand made a mistake identified by Karl Popper, and why her ideal society would be an unstable one that would evolve into anarchy (a conclusion she would not have liked!).
“If you make this one mistake you should also make this other mistake.” twitter.com/Chesschick01/s…
Except in the very highest bracket there's also a surcharge in the form of house arrest.
But you didn't show that your problems with game theory can help you solve collective action problems.
I don't think problems can be solutions.
Meanwhile, your country just got over-run, because you were unable to field an army to defend it.
voluntary, non tax-funded army
To address something more specific again:
The optimal outcome for you is that everyone else pays their taxes, and you don’t. This is true for everyone.
Can you think of a specific circumstance where that isn't true for everyone?
You feel wrong. In my first tweet I answered your questions. Then I added more information about what’s wrong with game theory generally in my second tweet.
@__adamjohnson_
If the paper is intended to be read physicists
I've argued that it isn't (only).
Also, Papers directed at peers can still be obscurantist. Cf. Feynman's example at blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/analyzin…
LOL yea. Malice solved this by immediately dropping the term "anarchy" in favor of Brook's preferred term "voluntarism" and its definition. Very Popperian. Didn't work anyway, showing that Brook's move was just defensive and Malice's usage of terms wasn't wrong.
@__adamjohnson_
Maybe. He can address physicists specifically in addition to a general audience, that doesn’t really change my argument because he still gets to impress laymen anyway.
One need not present specific solutions to every problem in question for the claim that problems are soluble to be valid.
But generally speaking, people persuade each other all the time. They make arguments, point out contradictions, offer better alternatives, etc.
Game theory also assumes a fixed set of choices and outcomes. But as I’ve said, people are creative: they can create new outcomes and new avenues to achieve them.
Game theory fundamentally views people as automata mechanically making decisions. Which is gross (and false).
People’s choices aren’t fixed to what some economists think their Rational Choice should be. You can convince people that, say, free riding is wrong and then fewer of them will do it.
@__adamjohnson_
So considering this and also keeping in mind how obscurely he talks on his show all the time, also to a general audience, I find that overwhelming evidence that his paper is meant to obscure.
@__adamjohnson_
Well, it’s like I write in the comment I linked. To elaborate: he explicitly distances himself from academia, then refers to his paper as a work of entertainment. I don’t think that means there are inside jokes, but that it’s meant for a broad audience, like ~all entertainment.
@__adamjohnson_
Yes, I agree that that falls under obscurantism. And that maybe he’s not doing it deliberately. But I’m guessing you underestimate how prevalent obscurantism is in academia, even when subject-matter experts address each other.
Yes, the American government still employs much coercion, unfortunately. But in time, the amount of coercion can be reduced by creating more knowledge.
However, if there's a diffing tool I don't know about that can diff words, not just lines, and visually accommodate this without messing up the flow of the writing, then it could work great.
Sadly, using git for writing doesn't work well because lines get much, much longer than in code (every paragraph is a single line), which obscures the diffs.
But in principle, that problem is also soluble without coercion, like all problems. The US has solved it, for example. Other countries haven't.
If a society doesn't know how to defend itself without coercing its members, it can be argued that a draft is better than death.
But the example is a bit flawed because the evil situation the society and its members are put in is caused by foreign coercion in the first place.
Yes. And it is written for the general public, as Weinstein points out himself. See blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/a-compre…
@__adamjohnson_
It is written for the general public. See blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/a-compre…
To clarify, yes coercion is worse, no you don't just live with it. You find other ways of dealing with it that are better than the status quo.
For aggressive coercion: no. Problems are soluble. Create new outcomes and solutions and try more persuasion.
Brook should have conceded the point. He made a conjectured, Malice immediately offered a refutation. Malice was right and Brook knew it. But I'm guessing Brook feels he has too much riding on looking in the right to people—apparently more than he has riding on pursuing truth.
Later, Brook (paraphrase): "Anarchy can't work because the guy with the biggest gun always wins."
Malice (paraphrase): "Then how come we didn't win in Vietnam?"
Brook, stuttering: "Well, you're taking things out of context."
Disappointing performance by Brook.
Brook: “The only way to achieve a better world is through government.”
That could have been said by a communist.
Dunno why you put persuasion in quotes, but the answer is "no". Persuasion can always work, but there is no guarantee that it will.
Is doing god's work this ginger brother.
RT @DaFeid:
24/x
Danke Kathrin Osterode 🙏
#allesdichtmachen
#niewiederaufmachen
#lockdownfürimmer
allesdichtmachen.de https://t.co/TK…
RT @DaFeid:
20/x
Danke Karoline Teska 🙏
#allesdichtmachen
#niewiederaufmachen
#lockdownfürimmer
allesdichtmachen.de https://t.co/qpWq…
RT @DaFeid:
19/x
Danke Inka Friedrich 🙏
#allesdichtmachen
#niewiederaufmachen
#lockdownfürimmer
allesdichtmachen.de https://t.co/5AT…
RT @DaFeid:
17/x
Danke Claudia Rippe 🙏
#allesdichtmachen
#niewiederaufmachen
#lockdownfürimmer
allesdichtmachen.de https://t.co/fkQRn…
RT @DaFeid:
16/x
Danke Christine Sommer 🙏
#allesdichtmachen
#niewiederaufmachen
#lockdownfürimmer
allesdichtmachen.de https://t.co/3…
RT @DaFeid:
13/x
Danke Cem Ali Gültekin 🙏
#allesdichtmachen
#niewiederaufmachen
#lockdownfürimmer
allesdichtmachen.de https://t.co/nTY…
RT @DaFeid:
10/x
Danke Felix Klare 🙏
#allesdichtmachen #niewiederaufmachen #lockdownfürimmer
allesdichtmachen.de https://t.co/6xfFB8…
RT @DaFeid:
12/x
Danke Pasquale Aleardi 🙏
#allesdichtmachen
#niewiederaufmachen
#lockdownfürimmer
allesdichtmachen.de https://t.co/BP…
RT @dchackethal:
@Evolving_Ego @ashishkjha
Problems arise when too many group members choose to pursue individual profit
LOL those pesky…
Persuasion is always possible. And even if it weren’t, that wouldn’t explain why coercion would be morally okay. Nor is it okay when one fails to persuade.
One has two options, really: persuade others or leave them alone.
That’s presupposing that one knows what’s best for others. Which is highly problematic.
When one fails to persuade, it needn’t be because the other person is being irrational or something. It can also be because one sucks at persuading.
Problems arise when too many group members choose to pursue individual profit
LOL those pesky group members never going with the program!
I recall that article. Maybe we have spoken before. The strings "persua" and "convinc" appear 0 times in the article, so I'm guessing the article doesn't address what I was saying, nor does it refute the notion that persuasion can solve problems. Or does it?
To be clear, you don't think persuasion works because it can lead to free-riding? Or you're attributing that problem to taxation?
You wrote: "Perhaps you missed the part about ending a pandemic." That sounds to me like you think I don't want the pandemic solved.
Do you think taxes/force are the only way to solve the pandemic, or do you think persuading people could work?
That doesn’t imply that I don’t want the pandemic solved.
What did I say that led you to think I didn’t know ending the pandemic would be desirable?