banned for obnoxious not-pology
I'm trying to think of a polite way to say "in short, no" and "the linked tweet having "effectivealtruism" in it twice should have been a clue", because I'm not that mean, but I probably need more coffee too.
The ceilings are so high, pre-war or something like that, and in the lobby there’s a mirror that makes me feel like we’re at Versailles.
"His voice is warm and husky, like dark melted chocolate fudge caramel ... or something."
I kind of wish that she and I could meet. I'd stare deep into her eyes, take her hand in mine, drop my voice into the register that Grandpa Stacey used in his decades of hosting radio, and intone, "Your brain is where insight goes to die."
Levy is rarely boring.
[citation needed]
It's fun to stand on the shoulders of giants... and having the standard stuff down cold is the best way to convince experts that when you do have a zany idea, it might be worth considering.
This is why my crimes.txt file just contains the recipes that I really should not try making, like Jake Morgendorffer's chile con cheesepuffs with fresh mint, and my actual crime plans are in... oh ho, I see what you did there, you clever jack-a-napes!
It's like he heard the phrase "flesh-eating bacteria" and decided they would be more scarier if they had tiny knives and forks.
Quoth Yud:
I'm sort of skeptical that you could write something that works as science communication for a general audience, though lord knows I'm not necessarily succeeding either.
All the faux modesty of Tommy Tallarico saying "my mother is very proud".
The key valid ideas to be communicated are [made-up sci-fi bullshit about nanobots]
Likewise, Arthur Chu recently tweeted that he’s “unhappy about [my] continued existence”–i.e., on a straightforward reading, that he wants me to die.
The tweet was a reply to Aaronson saying (in part),
Far be it from me to psychoanalyze him, as he constantly does to me, but Chu's unremitting viciousness doesn't strike me as coming from a place of any great happiness with his life. So I say: may even Mr. Chu find whatever he's looking for.
To which Chu replied,
I am unhappy about many things, including the continued existence, wealth and social status afforded to men like you, and the cheesy sentimentality is not reciprocated
I.e., on a straightforward reading, he was talking about "existence" in the sense of lifestyle, not life. (The OED gives "sheltered existence" as an example of this meaning, which I find apt.)
I've more than once been tempted to write Everything the Sequences Get Wrong about Quantum Mechanics, but the challenge is doing so in a way that doesn't just amount to teaching a whole course in quantum mechanics. The short-short version is that it's lazy, superficial takes on top of cult shit — Yud trying to convince the reader that the physics profession is broken and his way is superior.
No, that's not what Penrose asserts. His whole thing has been to say that quantum mechanics needs to be changed, that quantum mechanics is wrong in a way that matters for understanding brains.