lcuff (u/lcuff) - Readit News

lcuff commented on Straussian Memes lesswrong.com/posts/CAwnn... · Posted by u/kp1197

ryandv · 2 months ago

It's really quite potent in terms such as "racism" or "gender" which have seen unilateral attempts at redefinition.

lcuff · 2 months ago

Again, I think this is likely seen differently depending on which side of the political spectrum one stands, and what sources of information one attunes to. I agree that both 'racism' and 'gender' have become flash-points for discord, and that one can point to the left as trying to change the definitions. But I can think of other words that the right is equally guilty of attempting to re-define. For example, 'woke' was a term originally rooted in African American communities meaning awareness of systemic injustice, but is now used by the right as pejorative for anything they disagree with. (Including the existence of systemic injustice, sigh.)

lcuff commented on Straussian Memes lesswrong.com/posts/CAwnn... · Posted by u/kp1197

PaulHoule · 2 months ago

It's classic Bay Area monoculture, like that Paul Graham essay about "things you can't say". People are deferential to it because LessWrong is a hugbox or because Graham is rich but in that monoculture people are used to laughing at jokes that lack a punch line and thinking that makes them "insiders", "cool", or "smart", compared to people in flyover states, the East Coast, and the rest of California who can't see the Emperor's clothes.

The article itself is an example of something that overlaps to some extent with its subject without being an example of the subject, like all the examples in it. It's an intriguing idea, like "things you can't say" but without examples it falls flat but that won't bother the rationalists anymore than they are bothered by Aella's "experiments" or allegedly profound fanfics or adding different people's utility functions or reasoning about the future without discounting. It's a hugbox.

Or maybe it is something they can't find any examples of it because humans can't make them, only hypothetical superhuman AI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyOEwiQhzMI

lcuff · 2 months ago

Everybody's mileage will vary on this ... I spent a lot of time in the year after I read Paul Graham's essay on "things you can't say", searching for things that I thought matched the criteria he set out, and found a few. But it's not that the words may never cross my lips, I can say these things within some small circle of people, but would definitely not be saying them in public without being prepared for an onslaught of negative attention. Some examples of 'cancel culture' are proof of this. Donald G. McNeil comes to mind.

That said, I'm not impressed with the notion of Straussian memes and agree that way better examples are needed to give the idea some validity.

lcuff commented on Straussian Memes lesswrong.com/posts/CAwnn... · Posted by u/kp1197

ryandv · 2 months ago

> Another phrase that comes to mind is "Plausible Deniability": By uttering ambiguous sentences you can deny all but one possible meanings of what you say. And talking to different audiences at different times you can claim you didn't mean anything like what your citics are claiming you did.

This is the core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left in a nutshell. Linguistic superposition, equivocation, Schrodinger's definition - whatever you want to call it, it's the ability to have your cake and eat it too by simply changing your definitions, or even someone else's, post hoc.

Let us take a moment to be reminded of the English Socialism of Orwell and doublespeak.

lcuff · 2 months ago

"Core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left". Or the conservative right, depending on which side of this divide one happens to stand on. And speaking of Orwell, he was pointing out the doublespeak of the Fascists, not the socialists.

lcuff commented on Koralm Railway infrastruktur.oebb.at/en/... · Posted by u/fzeindl

joushx · 3 months ago

The rails are welded together (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic_welding), so there are no joins.

lcuff · 3 months ago

Interesting. I wonder how the expansion and contraction of the rails with changes in temperature is accommodated.

lcuff commented on Koralm Railway infrastruktur.oebb.at/en/... · Posted by u/fzeindl

lcuff · 3 months ago

I remember reading some time ago that there is a real difficulty running passenger trains and freight trains over the same rails. With freight, you can tolerate bumps at the rail-join points, and freight tends to create such bumps because the heavy loads push the rails slightly out of place. Also, freight routes should be limited to a 2% grade, whereas 4% can be tolerated for the lighter passenger cars. Have these problems been mitigated on the Koralm Railway? Anyone know how?

lcuff commented on Things I want to say to my boss ithoughtaboutthatalot.com... · Posted by u/casca

dasil003 · 3 months ago

I think your definition of character is useful, and I tend to agree with Drucker that it's the most important thing, because otherwise a manager will subject to whatever political winds are blowing higher up without any grounding or point of view on what should be pushed back on. On the other hand though, "do[ing] the right thing regardless of negative consequences to oneself" is easily stated, but in practice is not effective without influence—if you are constantly saying no, you'll quickly be replaced.

The uncomfortable truth is that "the right thing" depends a lot on the point of view and narrative at hand. In large organizations political capital is inherently limited, even in very senior positions. It's especially challenging in large scale software development because ground-level expertise really is needed to determine "the right thing", but human communication inherently has limits. I would say most people, and especially most software engineers, have strong opinions about how things "should" be, but if they were put in charge they would quickly realize that when they describe that a hundred person org they would get a hundred different interpretations. It's hard to grok the difficulty of alignment of smart, independent thinkers at scale. When goals and roles are clear (like Apollo), that's easy mode for organizational politics. When you're building arbitrary software for humans each with their own needs and perspective, it's infinitely harder. That's what leads to saccharine corporate comms, tone deaf leaders, and the "moral mazes" Robert Jackall described 30+ years ago.

lcuff · 3 months ago

I agree that "the right thing" depends on point of view and narrative at hand (the context). And when I quote Drucker and point to character, I see it as the bedrock on which a good manager will stand. But people of good character still need a whole array of other tools to turn them into good managers: Being skillful politicians to navigate the organizational polity, being people who can see the big picture. Having _lots_ of people skills. Having a good grasp of the field of endeavor. An ability to laugh at themselves ...

lcuff commented on Twelve Days of Shell 12days.cmdchallenge.com... · Posted by u/zoidb

imp0cat · 3 months ago

You're overthinking it. You can get quite far with a bit of ls or find . -type f exploration

lcuff · 3 months ago

Failing to understand the basic requirement is not, IMHO, overthinking it.

I will admit, as I reread the question and the hint just now, that I just didn't read carefully the first time through. It's actually pretty clear. Sigh.

People's minds work quite differently ... As evidenced by people that have strong reactions to particular languages (love or hate), or, as another example, people that love or hate syntax coloring in code. (Yes, it gets in the way for some). The fact that the instructions didn't make the problem clear to me is not an overthinking problem on my part. It would be better for me if the problems were expressed in different ways.

When trying to communicate, saying the same thing two different ways is a big step towards helping deal with the variance in people's minds. I wish they'd done that with some of the questions.

lcuff commented on Things I want to say to my boss ithoughtaboutthatalot.com... · Posted by u/casca

lcuff · 3 months ago

Peter Drucker wrote that the most important thing a manager could have was 'character'. I've asked myself "What is character?", and the best answer I've come up with is: "The willingness to do the right thing regardless of negative consequences to oneself." When I look at myself, I don't believe I have character. I want to be liked too much, and in my emotional core, I'm frightened. I don't think I'm alone in this. I think a lot of people in managerial roles have little or no character, and are unwilling to take on the monster of 'the system', whatever that means in their context, because in general their superiors don't want to hear the bad news a manager with character might deliver. I've worked for managers who were complicit in hiding the dilution of stock options; who failed to push back on higher-management policies that were eroding the morale of their subordinates; who failed to be straight with subordinates about things they could improve; Who accepted ridiculous schedule demands on their teams, allowing death marches. You've probably got many examples of your own.

I wish there were some easy solution to this problem, but I don't see one. I do recommend the NASA document "What Made Apollo A Success". https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19720005243

lcuff commented on Twelve Days of Shell 12days.cmdchallenge.com... · Posted by u/zoidb

lcuff · 3 months ago

I thought there was too much ambiguity to several of the challenges:

I gave up after the following exercise:

On the eighth day of Shell my true love gave to me Eight elves in Santa's Workhop/ ... Hint: Try finding files named after Elves and moving them to the Workshop/ directory.

It turns out, all they want is the files in the ./Elves directory to the ./Workshop directory. But I didn't figure that out.

lcuff commented on Active listening: the Swiss Army Knife of communication togetherlondon.com/insigh... · Posted by u/lucidplot

kubanczyk · 4 months ago

> Using it in a business context, there's more emphasis on ideas

No. It's a cheap trick to make me trust the interlocutor. Since it's not only cheap but effective, it's entirely my choice whether I submit to it and "open up".

In business the other side is anything but your therapist.

lcuff · 4 months ago

"It's a cheap trick to make me trust the interlocutor".

Hmmm. Different interlocutors can have different intentions. Some are going to have the intention to understand. Echoing what you believe the person said is not a 'cheap trick' when it comes to discussing ideas. I've been on both ends of conversations about singing, engineering and sailing, and one person says "what your saying is this" and the other person says: "No, that's not what I'm saying", with a correction that follows, and the chance for two-way understanding.