Data Republican describes the specific organisations and tactics of the interrelated protest groups.
And...quelle surprise, Open Society Foundation provided $5M of the $20M funding foundation across the network. Delaney Hall was suddenly called off - an informative story in itself - when Scott Bessent declared that funding foundations would be held liable if their grant recipients were violent.
We are going to Orkney in the fall, which is serviced only by Loganair. We are stopping in Reyjavik for a few days on the way home. There are just too many moving parts on these flights. A lot of the problem comes from airlines wanting the other legs of the flights and punishing you for going away. Timing of flights is also ugly.
I am tempted to book each leg separately. I expect to pay somewhat more, but is it insanely more?
When we went to Acadia, we went down to Bass Harbor to see the frequently-photographed, frequently-painted lighthouse. I am quite sure I have seen one in impressionist style painted by a friend, or posted by a friend. Perhaps it was on Facebook. I have feeling I have not seen it in the last year or two. The painting was less bright, likely at sunrise or sunset.
It is this angle and less than this much of the surrounding area as in this photo. This group goes to many of the internet places I go and includes some of my friends. Does this look like any painting you are familiar with? It's driving me nuts.
One of my book groups is doing The Things We Make: The unknown history of invention. We are unexcited, but it has some value. It has too many extraneous anecdotes, but they are at least entertaining, and I believe accurate. I think I can save you the trouble of learning its lessons though. His main points are that processes and process improvements are as valuable as objects, and that the era of the solo inventor is over: Everything is interactive and cooperative now.
The latter is only half true. David Foster remembered reading a similar claim sixty years ago - just before Apple and Microsoft took over the world. So don't sell the bicycle shop just yet, Orville. With so much available online and via AI, we may instead be on the precipice of an era of solo inventors again.
Or not. As Yogi Berra supposedly said "Prediction is hard, especially about the future."
Reposted from 2015
The story is told that the Baal Shem was granted the privilege of meeting in this life the person he would live next to in heaven. He was directed to go into a tavern in a small village not all that far from his home, and saw an enormous glutton there, with copious food and drink before him. The Master of the Good Name watched from the next table, marveling at the amount of food the man swallowed, wondering what this meant. Perhaps it is a lesson from G-d that I should not disdain the pleasures of this world. This man is clearly extreme in his earthly joy, but if he goes to heaven, G-d must approve. He sat beside him.
"You must be a wealthy man," he observed, "to afford to eat so well."
"I cannot afford what you see here," the glutton contradicted. "I will die in debt to the butcher, the tavern-keeper, and the greengrocer, and my family will be embarrassed by me."
"Your wife does not approve, then?" asked the Baal Shem.
"I have no wife," the fat man growled, barely pausing in his dinner. "I have not the time."
"Then you must greatly enjoy the pleasures of the table." the Besht concluded.
"I hate food," the man replied "and I hate drink as well. Every moment of my life is a weariness to me, always eating rich food and drinking good wine."
Rabbi Yisroel ben Eliezer sat silently for many minutes, observing, thinking. Finally, he gave it up and asked the man "Then I do not understand. You hate food, yet you eat more than any three men I have known. You hate drink, yet your glass is immediately empty and you call for more. What is the meaning of all this?"
The man shifted in his chair for a moment, as if to draw breath for another assault on the plates before him. "There was a pogrom, and my father was brought before the great men of the district and set on fire as a torch to light their banquet. I was there and watched from the shadows."
The Baal Shem bowed his head slightly in sadness and softly said "And so a banquet of your own somehow erases this?"
"Not at all," said the impossibly fat man angrily. "He was a poor, skinny man, a sick chicken, who gave off almost no light, even in death. It was prophesied in a dream that I too would die in the same manner. When they burn me I will give off a light that will go on for days, glorious to behold."
From Slate Star Codex over a decade ago, concerning ability versus perception in career choices.
Okay. Imagine a study with the following methodology. You survey a bunch of people to get their perceptions of who is a smoker (“97% of his close friends agree Bob smokes”). Then you correlate those numbers with who gets lung cancer. Your statistics program lights up like a Christmas tree with a bunch of super-strong correlations. You conclude “Perception of being a smoker causes lung cancer”, and make up a theory about how negative stereotypes of smokers cause stress which depresses the immune system. The media reports that as “Smoking Doesn’t Cause Cancer, Stereotypes Do”.
Relatedly, a recent discussion of Tradwives and career choices. N3 is on a roll lately. I hope it continues.
Nonreplicable Findings are cited more than replicable ones. My cynical self whispered that these are things that people want to be true, evidence be damned, because it would be so cool if it were. I was therefore pleased to read in the next paragraph that Stewart-Williams calls it Steve's Law, that Boring findings and non-PC findings are more replicable than interesting or PC ones.* The paper's own abstract says something similar
Abstract: We use publicly available data to show that published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate are cited more than those that replicate. This difference in citation does not change after the publication of the failure to replicate. Only 12% of postreplication citations of nonreplicable findings acknowledge the replication failure. Existing evidence also shows that experts predict well which papers will be replicated. Given this prediction, why are nonreplicable papers accepted for publication in the first place? A possible answer is that the review team faces a trade-off. When the results are more “interesting,” they apply lower standards regarding their reproducibility.
*Also at the link are odd studies showing that birds are more afraid of women than men - currently unexplained.
Capgras Delusion. Definition here. Very nice guy, BTW. I found he was from near my neighborhood and we had childhood friends in common. Complete remission of symptoms on a little medication, and kept asking us how he could have ever developed such a crazy idea as that his identical twin brother had been replaced by an imposter.
Learning While Speaking I teach myself things all the time
Prayer Breakfast President Obama reminded those gathered that Christians have violence in their history. Governor Jindal answers that we need no longer worry about the dangers of Medieval Christians but have serious danger from Muslims now.
Kyle's newish girlfriend was over yesterday for dinner with we other nine local family members, and we facetimed with both Norway and Alaska. I noticed immediately that she was dressed like Cher - 1960s era, and mentioned it. She also has the long dark hair, though not the long bangs, and not the trademark shaking hair away. It's a fun look.
It is immediately clear that she was the better singer and performer even then, but she was always quick to praise him and defend him, even after their divorce. He was the better manager and businessman; he had made them famous. Looking into it, that is likely true. He had them quickly throw together an album after this song hit #1, producing it, writing some of the songs, choosing and securing permission for the others. He pushed for them to get the TV show.Via Steve Stewart-Williams, Political Breakups: Interpersonal consequences of polarisation. By Mertcan Gungor and Peter H Ditto. In current America, political polarisation is great enough that people will break off relationships. This is most commonly a split with friends, followed by family, coworkers, and romantic relationships. Democrats are more likely to have been involved in a split than Republicans - 50% more over four studies with Independents in between. They are more likely the initiators. One study showed a lifetime total of 45% of Democrats parting from others, usually a friend.
I can imagine a couple of people I know immediately saying that this is because Democrats care more about moral issues and/or that Republicans get more obnoxious about their politics so people will obviously want to get away from them. I regard both as untrue and excuses, but you know, they do logically hold together. Either of those could be a reason, at least for some individuals. Nothing logically excludes that, and it is tough to measure motives from the outside, especially as we are not always aware of our own motives.
David Foster and I have both posted on "The Dangers of National Repentance" before. Written by CS Lewis in early 1940, it created a surprising amount of fallout for a nation in a war that was almost universally thought necessary. Brenton Dickieson covers a good deal of the background and discussion over at A Pilgrim in Narnia, including the full text as it appeared in the newspaper.
David has updated his thoughts over at his new Substack in The Guilt That Isn't, including a reference to Gad Saad's discussion of Suicidal Empathy.
Many “progressives”–and not just the religious ones–have uncritically and without reflection adopted the ideas and values of “their own age and class”–and, while doing so, they have congratulated themselves on their courage and independence of thought. Thus, they can enjoy a great feeling of righteousness without running the risk of condemnation by those whose opinions really matter to them.
But really, you can skip all our words and go straight to Lewis's.
I have conquered my addiction to reading and posting on Quora, but commenter Earl Wajenberg (Wind off the Hilltop) still has his. Occasionally the fit takes him, as it does the Tooks from time to time, and he answers a question that deserves a solid answer, mostly because it should never have been asked. I thought the analogies had good teaching properties.
How do scientific theories evolve over time, and why do scientists accept those changes more easily than religious belief changes?
Science is a method of investigation, so its findings will keep changing as investigation continues.
Religion is not a method of investigation. It is a way of reacting to the awesome and the ultimately important. Therefore, it is all about the thing it is reacting to. Change the understanding of the religious object and you change the religion.
Change the understanding of the object of scientific investigation and it’s just time for another round of peer review (usually, unless you have a real paradigm-breaker).
If you’re researching a historical figure and you start by assuming she was born in England and named Mary Johniston, née Smithers, then learn that she was actually born in Austria as Elizabet Maria von Uberwalden, married at age 16 to Karl von Schadenfreude, ran away to England at age 18, took the name Mary Smithers, managed to drop her accent entirely, but never quite got around to finishing the divorce proceedings before (oops) marrying Johniston and having three kids—well, all that is very interesting, but not nearly as upsetting as if you are Johniston and discover all this about your not-quite-lawfully-wedded wife when she has a little too much wine on your tenth wedding anniversary.
The historian is like the scientist. The husband is like the worshiper.
I’m not saying that all religion is or should be a matter of having “a personal relationship with Jesus” or whoever the deity is, but a religion is about your soul or destiny or purpose, or the souls or survival of your people, so it takes a lot less kindly to tinkering than almost any change to a piece of science. Changes to science will change how you understand something, and maybe change how you understand almost everything you’re interested in, but it has to reach a rare fever pitch in a few deeply dedicated individuals before scientific changes keep them awake all night biting the pillow.
Concrete example: There is a movement in modern conservative Christianity saying, “For centuries, people have been concentrating on the issue of ‘How do I get to Heaven’ when really the issue should be ‘How do I advance the Kingdom of God.’” There is also a long-standing effort in theoretical physics to extend the standard model of particle physics so as to explain a number of loose ends and puzzles. People are going to have a lot more emotion and argument about Heaven and the Kingdom of God than about super-symmetry and loop quantum gravity, though no doubt the latter will be intensely important to some specialists and of considerable interest to a number of their colleagues.
The second malaria vaccine. Podcast with trnscript of what vaccine development looks like from the inside. "The reality of this problem is the hardness of it is set by nature, and nature is a vicious test setter." That is more than a cute throwaway line. Vaccine objectors will talk about preferring natural solutions, but one problem is that these are natural diseases, and nature is not kind. Only people in prosperous places protected from nature think nature is kind. People who live with it know that it is powerful, sometimes beautiful, but dangerous. From Works in Progress
Also from Works in Progress: Review:Recession by Tyler Goodspeed
At first glance, Goodspeed’s target is the popular understanding of a boom-and-bust cycle. Consider his vivid account of the crisis of 1873. Both popular and scholarly histories have attributed this recession to railway mania and the collapse of the Northern Pacific Railroad. Goodspeed instead points out the devastating role of a surprise that had nothing to do with economics or economic policy: the great grasshopper plagues of 1873-1876, during which a single locust swarm covered an area larger than California and devastated the very regions the railroad was supposed to open to European settlers...This is why recessions remain essentially unpredictable. Any perceived regularity is likely to be a statistical illusion.
Why Did the Murders Stop In Baltimore? The information has been out there a long time, including Grim's discussion here, that homicide is is a problem in very few neighborhoods and even a very few people.
Baltimore follows this pattern. In Baltimore’s Western District, 72 percent of murders between 2015 and 2021 were attributable to a small number of men, mostly organized into gangs. The same analysis estimated that the area’s gang members accounted for just 2 percent of the district’s population but as much as 75 percent of its shootings and homicides.
The Cost of Longevity Cremieux Recueil. I don't know if this level of advancement is true, but pretend it is. More than anything, I wonder it will mean for church life and family life.
If we have a revolution in everything related to what I’ve listed so far, we conquer the travails of living. We become effectively immune to our environments: an end to infections, an end to degradation from plaque accumulation and the stress of glycemic spikes, a practical end to withering. It also means an end to wellness culture—no regimented dieting required, no extra benefits from structured exercise programs and retreats. You’ll be able to drink and party and you’ll be no worse off for having done it.
When asked what book he’d select if he was to be stranded on a desert island, G.K. Chesterton famously quipped: Thomas’s Guide to Practical Shipbuilding.
The 1958 Esquire Photo Shoot in Harlem. I am not knowledgeable. Less than half the names in the photos were known to me, including none of the women. But it was still fun to poke around with it.
Training Language Models to be Warm can Reduce Accuracy and Increase Sycophancy. Nature, via Gurwinder.
Artificial intelligence developers are increasingly building language models with warm and friendly personas that millions of people now use for advice, therapy and companionship1. Here we show how this can create a significant trade-off: optimizing language models for warmth can undermine their performance, especially when users express vulnerability.
Well that's ugly. Although maybe as I get older I will want more and more sycophancy.
Update: There are ways to adjust the settings to stress accuracy at the expense of friendliness. Just like with people.
