I’m 5&1/6, and I am offended that being a professional mathematician scores lower than CS. Or I would be if I could program.
Don’t blame me; I don’t make the rules. Computers are more disproportionately represented in the hard core of the yudbots than mathematics, thus they are more characteristic of it.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think of these two types as sharing much in the way of design philosophy. As far as I can tell the only similarity is that they’re fairly old-school, technologically; they could plausibly have been written in the late 90s.
And then there are some Type III, like whatever this is, which don’t even share the bare-HTML tech and seem to be included just because they’re, well, ugly and unusable.
The only websites that don’t qualify as “brutalist”, apparently, are those (Type IV?) that are inefficient, modern, and boring. Like the NY Times homepage, which somehow manages to spend the better part of ten seconds loading a bunch of text and images (and probably a disgusting quantity of Javascript). Ironically, if I were asked to define brutalism, “modern materials and aesthetics but lacking in both practicality and visual appeal” is probably pretty close.
I’ve decided it makes the most sense to organize these types on two axes: one for technical simplicity, robustness, etc. and one for visual complexity. Taking the first axis to be vertical and the second horizontal, we have Types I,II,III,IV clockwise from bottom right. Or, to include a helpful diagram:
#i use neither vim nor emacs #(yet. growth mindset)
hello may I have a moment to tell you about how vim is ~obviously~ the correct choice
Also, some of these “brutalist” websites (a subtype of type 1) are wonderful because vimperator absolutely loves them and they look nice that’s what I care about; not some shitty-complicated monstrosities that don’t show anything without getting permission to execute unsafe code and don’t show that much even then. Anyone can make a website, but elegance is the jazz. A modern and elegant website is only beaten by a lighter and less tech-bullshit-heavy version of elegance; while the ugly and the inelegant is still ugly and inelegant.
If/when I ever make a website for my own stuff, that’s what it’s going to be. As light as possible, while still looking awesome and most importantly doing its goddamn job and not getting in the way; just like spf13-vim with my custom synaesthesia colorscheme (not for releaseings yet), which is the editor I’m going to use to write it and ’:w index.html’ is totally going to happen. And it’s going to be more intuitive to learn than vim, which itself can easily prove its superiority in just half an hour if one uses ‘vimtutor’ and proceeds to do everything without ever taking their hands off the home row again. (hello may I have a moment to tell you about how a 60% mechanical keyboard in the dvorak layout and all other keys on the fn layer (fn replacing capslock because scorn capslock) is ~obviously~ the correct choice)
(if I’m going to continue tumblring in Lisp, I should do it this way
(at least I think this is easier to follow))
metagorgon said: didn’t you already learn surveys go viral when you grouped everything into left/right, female/male, etc and it was used as a personality test?
Yes, and I replicated the study and tested the method myself. Thus, if I ever need to draw attention to things, I should try to formulate them into a survey somehow so people will spread it. This is vital for memetic engineering purposes.
We can recruit the Berkeley physics and math grad students for a short survey to do this!
Yes, I’m kind of thinking that redoing this with a proper survey, built empirically from the LW diaspora dataset, with a proper control group, might shed some light on what the ultimate differentiating factors are.
Well. My score changed significantly, probably due to my intuitions about being “kind-of” things being very different from the original and explicitly mentioned in this one.
Also, perhaps we should rework the “Field” questions so that they are mutually exclusive? I manage to hit all of them.
I already included that in the description:
“(choose one or none from each sub-category)”
So that means one is intended to take the single highest-scoring option from each. And illusion of transparency is obviously more significant than I had expected, even when taking illusion of transparency into account.
I don’t think Yudkowsky himself would score that high.
::::|
Okay but let’s be real, this is all just “autism subtype markers”, right?
right????????
Now that you mention it, a lot of this is autism (autistic people are something like five to ten times more likely to be trans, for example), but I still think there’s something else going on, with the 50% depression rate etc. (as I suspect, there might be a specific type of badbrains that psychiatry hasn’t managed to pin down from symptoms but which has a distinct-ish etiology because “trans woman with autism, adhd, depression and/or anxiety” seems to be a very strong type)
Yudkowsky himself would be like 8-9 in my guess (in comparison, the “marxist” stereotype is quite different from what Karl Marx was), but the “yudbot” (affectionately intended) personality has something that makes it very attracted to this community/memeplex that I’d really like to tease out of the data once I start actually crunching the numbers instead of just eyeballing graphs. And it seems to be correlated with really interesting things, especially regarding gender and sexuality.
And I also need to find a control group somewhere, obviously.
Now with a scoring guide (choose one or none from each sub-category)
Age:
21-25 years +1
16-20 +½
26-30 years +½
Jewishness:
Yes +1
Kind of + ½
Gender:
trans woman (regardless of hormone usage) +1
any kind of amab using estrogen +1
amab non-binary (no estrogen) +¾
other non-cis or dubiously cis (afab trans, agender, magic button trans, etc.) +½
cis by default (not magic button trans) +¼
Poly:
Yes +1
Kind of, or open to the idea +½
Sexuality, part A:
gray-asexual or demisexual +1
asexual +½
asexual and kinky +1
kinky +½
Sexuality, part B (replace “sexual” with “romantic” if doing so would give you a higher score):
bisexual, pansexual, sapiosexual, any other kind of “gender isn’t really such a big deal"sexual +1
any kind of “gender isn’t a massive deal but it’s somewhat of a deal"sexual +½
gendersexual, but would take the bisexuality pill +½
Gifted child:
very +½ (eg. peerless in one’s childhood environment, or not peerless, but with a highly unusual peer group)
quite +¼ (eg. one of the highest-achieving in one’s slightly less highly unusual peer group)
Badbrains:
at least 2 of: ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression at least to a sub-clinical but noticeable degree +½
one of them +¼
Field:
CS student, or working in programming, AI, CS, etc. +1
self-learning any of the above +½
student or working in mathematics +½
Politics, part 1:
supports open borders, or at least massively increased immigration +½
supports significantly increased immigration +¼
Politics, part 2:
supports basic income by whatever name one wishes to use +½
supports some other kind of less bureaucratic, more market-based approach to welfare +¼
Politics, extra questions (can’t increase the total politics score over 1):
refuses to identify with ideological labels +½
identifies with a weird made-up “non-“ideological label +½ ("futarchy”, “meta-level politics”, etc.)
Geeking out:
transhumanist nerd stuff +1
any other uncommon and specific nerd stuff +1
less unusual SF/F or STEM nerd stuff +½
HPMoR, 3 Worlds Collide, Dragon-Tyrant (add scores from each):
has read all of it, or most and intends to finish +1/3
has read a lot but doesn’t intend to finish, or is starting +1/6
SSC:
regularly +1
sometimes +½
rarely +¼
I tried to not break legacy results compatibility so most people’s scores should be the same and this would just clarify the questionnaire; if people’s results change, it’s because I’ve changed some things to better reflect the original intent based on data acquired so far (looking especially at you, @sigmaleph, because that “politics” answer was the most stereotypical rationalist thing ever and I’m embarrassed to have overlooked that possibility)
Since everyone is doing it: .5 for age, depending on how you count Jewishness either .5 or 1, not cis-by-default woman, 1 point for poly, 1 point for gray-ace, sexuality is confusing but I’m going with 1 point here, I don’t think I am/was "unusually gifted” but people have told me otherwise so either .25 or .5, depending on how you count my (definitely subclinical) anxiety either .25 or .5 for badbrains, not a computer or math person, .25 for immigration (not a very carefully thought through stance, could go either way) and .5 for UBI, I’m not sure if my nerd stuff is particularly uncommon but let’s go with 1, .66 for HPMoR and the Dragon-Tyrant, 1 point for SSC.
Counting lowest scores 7 11/12, highest scores 8 11/12, I’m going to average that to 8.
According to @socialjusticemunchkin that makes me a Typical Rationalist. Which, uh, no. I’m a 16-year-old girl who’s not particularly STEM and hangs around here because the people are interesting, I’m basically the opposite of what I’d think if I was trying to imagine A Rationalist.
(As a side note: using @invertedporcupine’s measures of "agrees with EY”, I get either 2/4 or ½, depending on how you count. Many Worlds sounds superficially plausible and FOOM implausible, but I lack the background to understand either on any deep enough level to have a strong opinion. (Apparently we get meta-rationality points for admitting we don’t know enough? I’m claiming those, then.) I think dust specks are better than torture and cryonics sounds like shot on the dark, but one that might be worth it.)
On the other hand, to me "a gifted Jewishness-scoring badbrains unusualsexual teenager with correct-contrarian-leaning political opinions (as far as positive questions are concerned, basic income is one of those ideas that I consider pretty extremely likely to result from a relatively wide variety of normative views fully thought out), who reads the media and finds the people interesting” sounds very much like A Possible Rationalist.
As far as my amateur stetson-harrison psychometry suggests the STEM thing is slightly misleading; what makes A Rationalist is partially the things that make them different from the typical STEM person, and if I was forced to guess without proper data, I’d suggest it’s a certain badbrainsness and a more introspective and philosophical approach in some ways.
“Ownership” of a computer system is a surprisingly important thing to me.
When I first installed Ubuntu in dual boot a year ago, I immediately ditched Windows because linux felt like something I could understand and control (and break if I screwed up, and if I broke it it would be my own damn fault and I should simply git gud), while windows was an opaque black box of horribleness in comparison. I can count the times I’ve booted back to windows with my fingers, in unary. And I don’t even have polydactyly.
Then I had a taste of Arch and the same kind of feeling came back. I was no longer given a ready setup, but instead a blank slate to build my own system on, and all successes and, most importantly, fuckups would be purely my own. It was intimidating, it was difficult, it was awesome. And now ubuntu feels like windows in comparison.
For example, I can’t get Urxvt to load the colors from my .Xresources no matter how much I xrdb (but the font changes to Terminus as expected; yet I can’t get Terminess Powerline to show up either) and the ubuntu sources I can find don’t seem to expect people to be wanting to do this kind of low-level dotfile aroundscrewing (I mean, seriously, how else is one supposed to adjust stuff; gui tools are opaque and I don’t grok what they exactly do, whereas “so I adjust this dotfile here, it’s loaded by that program to do such thing” is intuitive and insightful) so it looks like I’m installing Arch to change my terminal colors. Might seem like slight overkill, but the Third Virtue of Rationality says that when it looks like I’m going to install Arch inevitably, I might as well do it right away.
So, deep computer side of tumblr, show me the forbidden advice!
On topics such as:
I have 480G and 240G SATA SSDs, and a 400G PCIe SSD; how should I set up the filesystem assuming I’m nuking windows and switching everything over to Arch, and possibly adding a few T of spinningy platters for bulk data storage later?
I’m thinking of using the 240 as a personal data backup drive for all the stuff I definitely don’t want to lose if one fails, putting / on the 480, and then I need some way to have all the I/O intensive stuff on the PCIe as it’s faster (you know you have ADHD when a regular SSD isn’t fast enough so instead you need to grab an enterprise-grade one from a clearance sale); so I should have certain folders located on that one, but I can’t think of anything overarching that would cover the needs.
The computer is going to occasionally be a game server for J so some games from steam need to be on the PCIe but I don’t want to install all of steam on it; and whatever I/O-heavy computing I do myself also needs to be running from it.
If I make it /home/promethea/$pcie_name it would be relatively easy and straightforward but then J can’t access it; if I make it /$pcie_name it feels a bit dirty for some reason; does anyone have any suggestions?
I think it depends on what “all the I/O intensive stuff” actually is. Are you running a database / server, and need access to that data quickly? Is it just for user programs? Not to mention you might want to put boot on there, so you can boot quickly.
Actually the fact that you basically want to split the disk makes me think you should use LVM to actually split it. I’ve done similar things with LVM, so I think what I’m suggesting should be possible as well.
Can’t boot off it because it’s a special enterprise grade drive instead of regular consumer stuff and I’d rather not go into hacking boot roms onto it (YGM); the normal SSD is fast enough for these purposes.
I originally bought it to have quicker 4k transfers for heavy random disk loads when gaming to minimize loading breaks etc. (and because both my 2,5" slots were full already but an expansion card looks neat), then I quit gaming and am looking for the best way of using it. It promises massive durability so it should be the drive that sees all the heavy stuff regardless of what the heavy stuff is.
I don’t want to partition things in a way that creates artificial limits, so some kind of a scheme that lets me point different folders to different physical disks would be optimal; for example, I could have / on the 480, and /home/promethea/dev/ and /home/J/steam/ on the PCIe so that either of them has access to all of the 400G, and /home/promethea/.backup/ and /home/J/.backup/ pointing to the 240 in the same way.
And I don’t know what that heavy usage would be, but my dev stuff might include anything. Not running more serverness than a home file storage once I get the TB platters, and steam streaming of games for J because I’m the one with the powerful hardware.
Okay. If you partition the PCIe into /steam and /dev, and then mount those partitions as needed, that basically satisfies your requirements. If you want to run dev tools from the PCIe drive you’ll either have to install from source or mess with config. (For example, if you’re running a mongo database it defaults to storing data in /data/db, so if you wanted it to go in /home/promethea/dev you’d have to reconfigure things.) But all that is certainly doable.
Out of curiosity, what specifically is the PCIe drive?
The PCIe drive is an Intel 910; got it for something like 1/10 of its list price; it did do an impressive job of making loading times a thing of the past.
Okay so partitioning is exactly what I’d like to avoid if possible (unless there’s a way to tell the partitions to just take whatever space they need and play nice with each other); I guess just mounting the 910 as /data and then symlinking folders in /data/promethea and /data/J to their respective locations (eg. /home/promethea/dev -> /data/promethea/dev) would be the easiest?
Now with a scoring guide (choose one or none from each sub-category)
Age:
21-25 years +1
16-20 +½
26-30 years +½
Jewishness:
Yes +1
Kind of + ½
Gender:
trans woman (regardless of hormone usage) +1
any kind of amab using estrogen +1
amab non-binary (no estrogen) +¾
other non-cis or dubiously cis (afab trans, agender, magic button trans, etc.) +½
cis by default (not magic button trans) +¼
Poly:
Yes +1
Kind of, or open to the idea +½
Sexuality, part A:
gray-asexual or demisexual +1
asexual +½
asexual and kinky +1
kinky +½
Sexuality, part B (replace “sexual” with “romantic” if doing so would give you a higher score):
bisexual, pansexual, sapiosexual, any other kind of “gender isn’t really such a big deal"sexual +1
any kind of “gender isn’t a massive deal but it’s somewhat of a deal"sexual +½
gendersexual, but would take the bisexuality pill +½
Gifted child:
very +½ (eg. peerless in one’s childhood environment, or not peerless, but with a highly unusual peer group)
quite +¼ (eg. one of the highest-achieving in one’s slightly less highly unusual peer group)
Badbrains:
at least 2 of: ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression at least to a sub-clinical but noticeable degree +½
one of them +¼
Field:
CS student, or working in programming, AI, CS, etc. +1
self-learning any of the above +½
student or working in mathematics +½
Politics, part 1:
supports open borders, or at least massively increased immigration +½
supports significantly increased immigration +¼
Politics, part 2:
supports basic income by whatever name one wishes to use +½
supports some other kind of less bureaucratic, more market-based approach to welfare +¼
Politics, extra questions (can’t increase the total politics score over 1):
refuses to identify with ideological labels +½
identifies with a weird made-up “non-“ideological label +½ (“futarchy”, “meta-level politics”, etc.)
Geeking out:
transhumanist nerd stuff +1
any other uncommon and specific nerd stuff +1
less unusual SF/F or STEM nerd stuff +½
HPMoR, 3 Worlds Collide, Dragon-Tyrant (add scores from each):
has read all of it, or most and intends to finish +1/3
has read a lot but doesn’t intend to finish, or is starting +1/6
SSC:
regularly +1
sometimes +½
rarely +¼
I tried to not break legacy results compatibility so most people’s scores should be the same and this would just clarify the questionnaire; if people’s results change, it’s because I’ve changed some things to better reflect the original intent based on data acquired so far (looking especially at you, @sigmaleph, because that “politics” answer was the most stereotypical rationalist thing ever and I’m embarrassed to have overlooked that possibility)
And now I have the result categories as well:
(break ties with Newcomb’s dilemma; one-boxers upwards, two-boxers downwards)
12: The Chosen One
10-12: True Yudbot of the Hivemind
8-10: Stereotypical Rationalist
6-8: Typical Rationalist
4-6: Quite rationalist-adjacent
2-4: Kind of adjacent I guess
0-2: I don’t know how you ended up taking the survey, please tell me your story
There should be a follow-up to plot the strength of correlation (or lack thereof) between number of points on this scale and number of things one agrees with EY about out of (Cryonics is a good personal investment, recursive self-improving AI FOOM is likely, torture better than dust specks, Many Worlds is *obviously* the best available hypothesis)
I’m 5.5/12 but 0/4.
10/12
Cryonics yes
FOOM yes
My ethical theory can answer the "youtube vs. sublimeness” dilemma but I haven’t ran the numbers; there exists a firm upper boundary on how much utility a slighty amusing video can generate regardless of how many see it, but there exists an amount of sublimity that is significant yet less utility than a youtube video seen by limit-reaching number of people, so I guess I fall on the “youtube” side with some reasonable parameters
I defer to experts on QM at least for now, and even skipped that part of the Sequences because I didn’t want to get eulered; so I don’t know if this counts as “exceeding the master in the master’s art” because I can quote several of the 12 Virtues supporting this view
So that’s basically 3/3 with some caveats, and meta-rationality points on QM because I know my limits
