... with its piss poor track record of forecasting global affairs. (And local too.) Written for IYIs to give them an illusion they are being better informed about this world of ours.
The cover is more or less the only thing of value in that magazine, artistically speaking.
I'm breaking the rule of not applying to AC since you make a valid point: how do you know it's not the intellectual equivalent of leftwingers yelling 'racist'? The answer is in the statistics: the Nassim-labeled IYI has a long history of getting complex things wrong (which is why he listed them).
It ticks me off that I keep hearing arguments like this whose predictions regarding the POTUS in the last 2 years have been *completely* wrong. If you are an exception to that pattern I would like to know based on what track record of yours should we take your claim at its value?
I'll quote Nassim Taleb here: "Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).
The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right."
IYI, by the way, stands for Intellectual-Yet-Idiot.
Excellent point re execs. I read that in England sometime in the middle ages bridge engineers were required after the construction to sleep for two weeks under the bridge -- with their families.
Cars, Parachutes and gliders are also, per Nassim Taleb, not complex systems. In complex systems -- living creatures, planet, societies, human or animal -- it is often very difficult to deduce the arrow of cause and effect, if one even exists at all.
Neither have I, but a google search shows a number of statements like this one from the YC: "I went to Collision (Las Vegas) last year, and it was a waste of time and money. Same startups, same VCs, same bloggers, etc, repeating the same stuff they said in a similar conference the week before i.e. loads of words are spoken, but no real content. Add to that the junk food they served, no seating..."
You pay for the shelf space in the mind of the voters. If you put cruddy items in there the cost goes up. When you are calling people to attention, I isn't that low at all.
Let's revisit this in 6 months. My guess is there will be energy spent over this with virtually nothing to show for it. Energy that Democrats could spend better, if they could see how.
Exactly. You can see it from their press release. The new business will more or less discreetly tell the potential clients they are former CA, implying that they helped "change history", however implausible that is. They will keep the subject alive as they only profit from people talking about it.
But then you have to admit their marketing is brilliant, and for that reason they indeed are worth hiring.
I think it rather shows Democrats are in a pinch -- what with the polls that even Millennials are dropping support -- if they are looking to scrape a few votes from an odd independent or even republican who care about NN posturing more than about everything else. My guess is this move will have a low ROI.
Exactly. This was all a mind thing, there was no real need for NK to develop functional nuclear weapons because no one wanted anything they have and they didn't want anything from anyone else either other than to be left alone. There was no material basis for a conflict, it's only a matter of view, and Trump is quite good at changing people's minds. Well some people's anyway.
It was said once, if we are able to talk about a problem, we already know the solution. Humanity has been through a lot worse. People are already going off the grid more and more. It's a cycle.
I expect the coming decade to be far less focused on consumer stuff like curved phone screens and (sorry but have to say it) VR, and more on fundamental research while said consumers work on regaining sanity in their everyday lives. Or, in case of Millennials, experiencing it for the first time.
So a long chain of improbable events, that more or less never happened in history, is more likely to have taken place than one man having a correct intuition about the moods and needs of the electorate, which has happened quite a few times in history.
Not to mention that he was not alone as millions were going along with it, and that it was more or less predicted by some early on, such as George Friedman of Geopolitical Futures in his September 2015 article, "The crisis of the well-crafted candidate." Yes he was talking about Hillary and Jeb. You may want to read it.
I.e. how important is it for researchers and manufacturers to observe objects at the nano level, how often and how easily? What kinds of improvements in methods like atomic force microscopy would be most relevant for researchers, and what other methods/breakthroughs would be key in your opinion? (Disclosure, I work for an AMF manufacturer, just started.)
Also when will we have self-assembling nanorobots like in Michael Crichton's Prey? (J/k, that falls under "hype" from previous question.:-)
So we are on the same page methods-wise. Obviously we've come to very different conclusions. Less obviously perhaps neither of us will ever know what really goes on in Trump's mind. But we can put our models to test by making predictions what he might do in the future regarding specific situations. If you'd like to try, I'm game.
As for your remark, I consider myself a Trump supporter, have been since early 2016. I'm a registered Independent, formerly a registered Green. I don't consider myself screwed over by his presidency, in fact he has far outdone my expectations. I can give you some metrics as I see them. Economically the country seems to be in a good shape, stock markets and all, but more importantly I see considerably more jobs in tech, at least in my area, now than in 2016, and the nationwide job market reports seem to be the best they can be (in CNBC's words). Politically, Trump -- socially a liberal and a Democrat until 2009 -- has managed to unite most Republicans behind him. Foreign policy I am quite happy with, he's doing exactly what he said he would in the debates. I have never seen this country ruin other countries less than during the Trump era. (Obama would be quite there too if not for his administration's first term.) The swamp is far from drained but I never really believed he'd last longer than a snowflake in hell -- realistically a few months -- fighting the entrenched bureaucratic powers. That he's still fighting that fight is quite an achievement to me. There are some downsides, mostly environmental, but they were expected and the impact remains to be seen. None of the fears were realized. Trump's instincts seem to be working most of the time, and he seems to learn when they aren't.
Again we can make some predictions and see which model is better, but if you'd believe me I what we have now is consistent with what I thought of him and close to what I had expected from "ideal Trump".
What The Economist is good at is repackaging current common sense ideas (and delusions) present among intellectuals in authoritative and apparently knowledgeable way. But their forecasting track record is actually pretty poor.
Bottom line is it really doesn't have much weight what The Economist says will happen. It's only their cover art that has lasting value.
Have you ever made any effort to imagine yourself being Trump, just to try to understand what his worldview may look like? This may sound like some esoteric psychology but is really what we unthinkingly do with everyone we can relate, whether they are family or friends or enemies. (Speaking of enemies, that ability to understand the other is presumably one of the reasons why Caesar was so successful in his military adventures.)
If you do that exercise on Trump -- without going into details of what may make it meaningful, but suffice to say we are humans who share common experiences and spend countless moments learning and relearning about one another and ourselves -- if you do that exercise on Trump, do you really think a very wealthy and successful 70-something guy who has had everything from possessions to affairs with beautiful women and who may well be in the last decade of his life would go through the tedium of running for president and being one just to cut his own taxes? That model of the mind you're proposing makes absolutely no sense to me. I have not seen such behavior anywhere. Best I can tell, people endure things like running and becoming President only because they are moved by something they feel is enormous in significance.
Regular folks intuit it easily, which is part of the reason Trump won, but the intellectuals especially on the left seem to have a hard time grasping that idea.
Me neither, that's a public link. Actually I had been on FB but deactivated it (a week before the CA "scandal", maybe Trump will inadvertently help get people off of facebook, for that alone he'd deserve the second term.;-). Posted the FB link since the comments -- for and against -- are better quality than youtube ones.
Sorry but few things carry more hubris with them than claiming to be on the right side of history, if that is the claim you are making regarding the left. To say so means not only to completely understand all the intricate nuances of society and human needs and values but also to be able to predict the future -- and the alternative future. I saw more than one facebook friend on Nov 7 2016 calling people to cast their vote for Hillary so they are "on the right side of history."
If you've heard of PragerU you probably don't like them but if you are so inclined hear their argument on that one and decide for yourself: https://www.facebook.com/prage...
It seems to me that the left leaning people in particular love using this "... oh, wait" fake surprise literary "device". It's disingenuous and to me it shows the writer's need to appear clever. Just make your argument, and if you can be funny, be funny, that's always welcome, but there's nothing funny about this one. If anything it reinforces the perception of people on the left as smug.
Slashdot Mirror
... with its piss poor track record of forecasting global affairs. (And local too.) Written for IYIs to give them an illusion they are being better informed about this world of ours.
The cover is more or less the only thing of value in that magazine, artistically speaking.
I'm breaking the rule of not applying to AC since you make a valid point: how do you know it's not the intellectual equivalent of leftwingers yelling 'racist'? The answer is in the statistics: the Nassim-labeled IYI has a long history of getting complex things wrong (which is why he listed them).
It ticks me off that I keep hearing arguments like this whose predictions regarding the POTUS in the last 2 years have been *completely* wrong. If you are an exception to that pattern I would like to know based on what track record of yours should we take your claim at its value?
I'll quote Nassim Taleb here: "Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).
The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right."
IYI, by the way, stands for Intellectual-Yet-Idiot.
The difference is 2003 slides lead to engagement, 2018 slides lead to disengagement. In 2003 a neocon was in office, in 2018 it isn't.
Excellent point re execs. I read that in England sometime in the middle ages bridge engineers were required after the construction to sleep for two weeks under the bridge -- with their families.
Cars, Parachutes and gliders are also, per Nassim Taleb, not complex systems. In complex systems -- living creatures, planet, societies, human or animal -- it is often very difficult to deduce the arrow of cause and effect, if one even exists at all.
Neither have I, but a google search shows a number of statements like this one from the YC: "I went to Collision (Las Vegas) last year, and it was a waste of time and money. Same startups, same VCs, same bloggers, etc, repeating the same stuff they said in a similar conference the week before i.e. loads of words are spoken, but no real content. Add to that the junk food they served, no seating ..."
Some say it's a scam: http://anothersb.blogspot.com/...
So, good riddance.
You pay for the shelf space in the mind of the voters. If you put cruddy items in there the cost goes up. When you are calling people to attention, I isn't that low at all.
Let's revisit this in 6 months. My guess is there will be energy spent over this with virtually nothing to show for it. Energy that Democrats could spend better, if they could see how.
Exactly. You can see it from their press release. The new business will more or less discreetly tell the potential clients they are former CA, implying that they helped "change history", however implausible that is. They will keep the subject alive as they only profit from people talking about it.
But then you have to admit their marketing is brilliant, and for that reason they indeed are worth hiring.
I think it rather shows Democrats are in a pinch -- what with the polls that even Millennials are dropping support -- if they are looking to scrape a few votes from an odd independent or even republican who care about NN posturing more than about everything else. My guess is this move will have a low ROI.
Linear thinking is belief that what exist today will exist tomorrow, only stronger. Funny that he's Google's director of engineering.
Exactly. This was all a mind thing, there was no real need for NK to develop functional nuclear weapons because no one wanted anything they have and they didn't want anything from anyone else either other than to be left alone. There was no material basis for a conflict, it's only a matter of view, and Trump is quite good at changing people's minds. Well some people's anyway.
"The fortune of complaint is such that it elicits contempt rather than pity."
It's in CA's interest to keep fanning this flame as they only profit if people -- and potential clients -- believe CA really helped change history.
It was said once, if we are able to talk about a problem, we already know the solution. Humanity has been through a lot worse. People are already going off the grid more and more. It's a cycle.
I expect the coming decade to be far less focused on consumer stuff like curved phone screens and (sorry but have to say it) VR, and more on fundamental research while said consumers work on regaining sanity in their everyday lives. Or, in case of Millennials, experiencing it for the first time.
So a long chain of improbable events, that more or less never happened in history, is more likely to have taken place than one man having a correct intuition about the moods and needs of the electorate, which has happened quite a few times in history.
Not to mention that he was not alone as millions were going along with it, and that it was more or less predicted by some early on, such as George Friedman of Geopolitical Futures in his September 2015 article, "The crisis of the well-crafted candidate." Yes he was talking about Hillary and Jeb. You may want to read it.
Quite the reverse, I suspect he's being told by everyone concerned that he's wrong, and he's insisting on an audit because he still thinks he's right
Isn't that attitude how he won the election?
I.e. how important is it for researchers and manufacturers to observe objects at the nano level, how often and how easily? What kinds of improvements in methods like atomic force microscopy would be most relevant for researchers, and what other methods/breakthroughs would be key in your opinion? (Disclosure, I work for an AMF manufacturer, just started.)
Also when will we have self-assembling nanorobots like in Michael Crichton's Prey? (J/k, that falls under "hype" from previous question. :-)
So we are on the same page methods-wise. Obviously we've come to very different conclusions. Less obviously perhaps neither of us will ever know what really goes on in Trump's mind. But we can put our models to test by making predictions what he might do in the future regarding specific situations. If you'd like to try, I'm game.
As for your remark, I consider myself a Trump supporter, have been since early 2016. I'm a registered Independent, formerly a registered Green. I don't consider myself screwed over by his presidency, in fact he has far outdone my expectations. I can give you some metrics as I see them. Economically the country seems to be in a good shape, stock markets and all, but more importantly I see considerably more jobs in tech, at least in my area, now than in 2016, and the nationwide job market reports seem to be the best they can be (in CNBC's words). Politically, Trump -- socially a liberal and a Democrat until 2009 -- has managed to unite most Republicans behind him. Foreign policy I am quite happy with, he's doing exactly what he said he would in the debates. I have never seen this country ruin other countries less than during the Trump era. (Obama would be quite there too if not for his administration's first term.) The swamp is far from drained but I never really believed he'd last longer than a snowflake in hell -- realistically a few months -- fighting the entrenched bureaucratic powers. That he's still fighting that fight is quite an achievement to me. There are some downsides, mostly environmental, but they were expected and the impact remains to be seen. None of the fears were realized. Trump's instincts seem to be working most of the time, and he seems to learn when they aren't.
Again we can make some predictions and see which model is better, but if you'd believe me I what we have now is consistent with what I thought of him and close to what I had expected from "ideal Trump".
What The Economist is good at is repackaging current common sense ideas (and delusions) present among intellectuals in authoritative and apparently knowledgeable way. But their forecasting track record is actually pretty poor.
Bottom line is it really doesn't have much weight what The Economist says will happen. It's only their cover art that has lasting value.
Have you ever made any effort to imagine yourself being Trump, just to try to understand what his worldview may look like? This may sound like some esoteric psychology but is really what we unthinkingly do with everyone we can relate, whether they are family or friends or enemies. (Speaking of enemies, that ability to understand the other is presumably one of the reasons why Caesar was so successful in his military adventures.)
If you do that exercise on Trump -- without going into details of what may make it meaningful, but suffice to say we are humans who share common experiences and spend countless moments learning and relearning about one another and ourselves -- if you do that exercise on Trump, do you really think a very wealthy and successful 70-something guy who has had everything from possessions to affairs with beautiful women and who may well be in the last decade of his life would go through the tedium of running for president and being one just to cut his own taxes? That model of the mind you're proposing makes absolutely no sense to me. I have not seen such behavior anywhere. Best I can tell, people endure things like running and becoming President only because they are moved by something they feel is enormous in significance.
Regular folks intuit it easily, which is part of the reason Trump won, but the intellectuals especially on the left seem to have a hard time grasping that idea.
Me neither, that's a public link. Actually I had been on FB but deactivated it (a week before the CA "scandal", maybe Trump will inadvertently help get people off of facebook, for that alone he'd deserve the second term. ;-). Posted the FB link since the comments -- for and against -- are better quality than youtube ones.
Sorry but few things carry more hubris with them than claiming to be on the right side of history, if that is the claim you are making regarding the left. To say so means not only to completely understand all the intricate nuances of society and human needs and values but also to be able to predict the future -- and the alternative future. I saw more than one facebook friend on Nov 7 2016 calling people to cast their vote for Hillary so they are "on the right side of history."
If you've heard of PragerU you probably don't like them but if you are so inclined hear their argument on that one and decide for yourself: https://www.facebook.com/prage...
It seems to me that the left leaning people in particular love using this "... oh, wait" fake surprise literary "device". It's disingenuous and to me it shows the writer's need to appear clever. Just make your argument, and if you can be funny, be funny, that's always welcome, but there's nothing funny about this one. If anything it reinforces the perception of people on the left as smug.