SneerClub

989 readers

3 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

self@awful.systems

blakestacey@awful.systems

dgerard@awful.systems

definitely time we started charging this person rent (www.lesswrong.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by dgerard@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

101 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

Someone asked in the comments that Zack clarify wtf the claim is, and Zack posted this abstract:

Does this help? (159 words and one hyperlink to a 16-page paper)

Empirical Claim: late-onset gender dysphoria in males is not an intersex condition.

Summary of Evidence for the Empirical Claim: see "Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism: Concepts and Controversies" by Anne Lawrence, published in European Psychologist. (Not by me!)

Philosophical Claim: categories are useful insofar as they compress information by "carving reality at the joints"; in particular, whether a categorization makes someone happy or sad is not relevant.

Sociological Claim: the extent to which a prominence-weighted sample of the rationalist community has refused to credit the Empirical or Philosophical Claims even when presented with strong arguments and evidence is a reason to distrust the community's collective sanity.

Caveat to the Sociological Claim: the Sociological Claim about a prominence-weighted sample of an amorphous collective doesn't reflect poorly on individual readers of lesswrong.com who weren't involved in the discussions in question and don't even live in America, let alone Berkeley.

so this is a two-hour post about Zack's arguments with unnamed Bay Area rationalists. Today, in posts that should have been a Discord chat.

(the paper he names is a Blancharding ramble)

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 11 points 10 months ago

Sociological Claim: the extent to which a prominence-weighted sample of the rationalist community has refused to credit the Empirical or Philosophical Claims even when presented with strong arguments and evidence is a reason to distrust the community’s collective sanity.

Zack my guy you are so fucking close. Also just fucking leave.

[–] locallynonlinear@awful.systems 10 points 10 months ago

One day, when Zack is a little older, I hope he learns it's okay to sometimes talk -to someone- instead of airing one's identity confusion like an arxiv prepublish paper.

Like, it's okay to be confused in a weird world, or even have controversial opinions. Make some friends you can actually trust, aren't demanding bayesian defenses of feelings, and chat this shit out buddy.

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 10 points 10 months ago (3 children)

And the arguments seem to boil down to them saying "if you wanna transition, just do it", and Zack is all like "nooooooo you must convince me not to via Rationality!!!!"

(sorry if I'm being flippant, this person seems to be in a lot of mental distress, but they're also kinda big deal in the community? Like fucking gwern weighed in a bit sarcastically?)

[–] pja@awful.systems 10 points 10 months ago

Who knows? They seem to know all these people personally, so I guess they attend rationalist cuddle puddles in SV or something.

I ran into them online a year ago when a Twitter follow shared their last essay with some acerbic comments about the lengths (both in the mental & absurd word count senses) they were going to do deny their desire to transition & they appeared in the comments after I made a snarky remark along the lines of “methinks the lady doth protest too much”. Still quite proud of that one.

[–] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

yeah i noticed yesterday there's a link to (one of) Zack's blog(s) in SSC's sidebar.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

so what precisely is Zack supposed to be good at in Rationality other than Blancharding?

[–] sailor_sega_saturn@awful.systems 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Word count.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

when you need to add an exponential notation option to wc

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

wc --tldr

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 5 points 10 months ago

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/wc.c#n507

The word count variable is an intmax_t, so assuming ISO C (it's GNU so probably not but whatever) it has to be at least C99 and thus support at least 64 bit long long.

Looking forward to the nine quintillion word LW posts. Wonder if I should submit a patch to make wc(1) use GMP for future proofing purposes…