My grandpa was born and raised in an industrial town that didn’t have access to pools or anything like that. He decided to learn to swim by reading a book and practicing in his living room. He would lay down on a bench or a seat and practice the motions. Every year, he’d go to a nearby town that did have a pool, and he’d sit for hours hearing how kids were taught to swim. He’d then go back to his living room and practice based on that.

So, how did he swim? Luckily, looking at him swim was something I could do with my own eyes. And just by the look of it, you’d never tell he learned on a bench.

There’s actually research on this. There are groups of people that donate more than others. There are two groups of people that really matter for this: people who have protection values and people who have democratic values.

People with protection values care about themselves and their people (their family, their clan, their tribe, their religion, their nation). People with democratic values care about humans in general, regardless of their religion, nationality, what family they come from, etc.

So, who donates more money? People with democratic values.

You can check out Christian Welzel’s Freedom Rising for more on this :)

https://wmich.edu/writing/punctuation/hyphen

This would’ve helped

Ghosts are the creation of our minds. And it turns out that our minds are flawed machines. This was shown by someone and they won a Nobel Prize for it (Daniel Kahnemann). If we understand our flawed minds, we understand why ghosts aren’t racist.

When you think of something, you run a simplified simulation of it. When you run these simulations, you don’t think about other things. For example, when people fantasize about achieving something, they usually run the simulation of having gotten the job and the money or having solved the tough problem. However, they usually don’t think about the path to achieving that goal. This is called the planning fallacy. It’s also called the Motivation Wave in Behavior Design.

Another example of these simplified simulations is the halo effect. The halo effect starts when you notice something good about someone. Maybe they’re attractive. Maybe they’re on your same team or political group or religion or whatever. The thing is that you end up building a good preconception of that person. You assume they’re kind and smart and many other positive things. Again, your mind is running a simplified simulation. Even if you notice bad stuff about the other person, you may ignore it because our mind is a flawed machine and it’s stuck with the idea that the other person is good.

So, how do simplified simulations lead to non-racist ghosts? Well, we all share an idea of what a ghost is. We tell each other ghost stories or we watch movies with ghosts in them. All of that feeds the simplified simulations we run when we think of ghosts. And we don’t include racism in those simulations.

This doesn’t mean that we can’t escape simplified simulations. This is a tough problem that many people have tried to solve in many different ways. These attempts have resulted in an arsenal of methods: psychological flexibility exercises, mental contrasting, pre-mortems, the Delphi method, red team blue team exercises, weak signal detection, etc. Notice that all of these tools try to transform our preconceptions.

Of course, a very simple way of transforming our preconceptions is to prove them wrong. I suppose in the case of non-racist ghosts, it’s a matter of creating racist ghosts. This project, however, brings up the old adage: just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

If you’re interested in simplified simulations, I recommend Lisa Feldman Barret’s books. You can also check out Daniel Kahnemann, Gary Klein, and Dave Snowden.

This sounds interesting. I’m just not sure it’s a shower thought. Is it?

People do or don’t do things depending on three variables: motivation to do it, the ability to do it, and the prompt to do it.

• Motivation could be lacking in some cases. People need to understand the purpose of turn signals. However, I don’t think there’s an anti-turn signal discourse going around. At least as far as I know.
• I don’t think it’s ability, because activating turn signals is relatively easy for most people.
• I think prompts could also be lacking.

How do we change this?

The Behavior Design answer would be something like this: We need to patiently and kindly train people to recognize prompts to the turn signals. “When you get to the corner, put your left hand on the turn-signal control and move it up. Then turn right.” We also need to celebrate it the instant they do it. “Perfect”. Of course, you need to have a good relationship with whomever you’re doing this with.

Now, that is not the only solution; there are many. We might have one solution if we zoom in on one person. We might have another solution if we zoom out to a whole city or country.

In any case, if we want to solve the problem with Behavior Design, you could check out Tiny Habits.

Besides talking to a doctor, would she be against doing cognitive training? If she’s down, I can suggest some stuff :)

Interesting. So the terms of service have not changed, and yet people are saying that they did. I wonder if there are criticisms that are still valid. For example, the terms of service that you linked:

• do not let me use a VPN (¶6.4)
• do not let me use glitches (¶6.4)
• do not let me own the copy of the game that I bought, but instead give me a limited license to it (¶2.1-2.2)
• do not inform me about future updates to their terms of service (¶10.2)
• force me to enter arbitration and do not let me be part of a class action lawsuit or have a trial by jury (¶17.5)
• link to their privacy policy, which:
  • does not let me opt out of having my data bought, merged, and sold through ad networks or data brokers (§ Categories of Information Collected, § How We Use Information and Our Legal Grounds, § Sources of Information We Collect, and § When We Share Information ¶ 5— all sources combined)
  • does not attempt to deliberately minimize data collection to protect my data. With the only exception of children’s data, their purposes are extremely vague (§ How We Use Information and Our Legal Grounds, as well as the entire document, because they do not attempt to do this in their privacy policy)
  • does not attempt to anonymize my data (I cannot provide a citation because there is no attempt to do this in their privacy policy)
  • does not specify the purposes of gathering and using information about any installed application on my device (§ Categories of Information Collected— this is especially worrying)
  • does not let me opt-out of data collection categories for specific purposes (cannot give a direct citation because they simply do not do it; instead, they wrote vague types of information they collect —such as “details about… other information related to installed applications” in § Categories of Information Collected, as well as vague purposes in § How We Use Information)

So, coming back to the original claim you were debunking:

They added spyware to it.

Your response was

No, they didn’t.

And I agree with you, now that I have read their terms of service and their privacy policy. Of course, we’re assuming that they haven’t changed their terms of service. If we assume that, then their spyware clauses weren’t added. No. They were always there. They have always said that they gather “details about… other information related to installed applications” on my device for purposes that can include merging and selling my data to data brokers and ad networks.

The problem you’re describing (open sourcing critical software) could both increase the capabilities of adversaries and also make it easier for adversaries to search for exploits. Open sourcing defeats security by obscurity.

Leaving security by obscurity aside could be seen as a loss, but it’s important to note what is gained in the process. Most security researchers today advocate against relying on security by obscurity, and instead focus on security by design and open security. Why?

Security by obscurity in the digital world is very easily defeated. It’s easy to copy and paste supposedly secure codes. It’s easy to smuggle supposedly secret code. “Today’s NSA secrets become tomorrow’s PhD theses and the next day’s hacker tools.”

What’s the alternative for the military? If you rely on security by design and open security for military equipment, it’s possible that adversaries will get a hold of the software, but they will get a hold of software that is more secure. A way to look at it is that all the doors are locked. On the other hand, insecure software leaves supposedly secret doors open. Those doors can be easily bashed by adversaries. So much for trying to get the upper hand.

The choice between (1) security by obscurity and (2) security by design and open security is ultimately the choice between (1) insecurity for all and (2) security for all. Security for all would be my choice, every time. I want my transit infrastructure to be safe. I want my phone to be safe. I want my election-related software to be safe. I want safe and reliable software. If someone is waging a war, they’re going to have to use methods that can actually create a technical asymmetry of power, and insecure software is not the way to gain the upper hand.

Already happening https://youtu.be/evSFeqTZdqs

Omg I just squinted and saw the pirate ships. Thanks for your contribution.

Same here, but with a different order.

• Turn the heat on.
• Wait.
• Test with water. If it doesn’t sizzle, wait and test again. If it does sizzle…
• Add oil

How does being Christian destroy your sense of self?

Huh. Interesting. What kind of math were you learning where you noticed the errors?

Indeed.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to have multiple categories. One of them definitely should be “Buildings count too”!

A strong contender!

Oops. Thanks for pointing this out! Strobe lights are a specific kind of flashing light, and flashing lights are what I meant.

It sounds as if you’re saying Harvard only produces capitalist apologists. If so, do you know Stephen Marglin? Richard Levins? Paul Farmer? Michael Herzfeld? Terry Eagleton?

Regardless, it’s tempting to dismiss elite academic institutions. They have time and again served the interests of elites. However, they have also been the place where radical and critical thought has burgeoned. Academia holds in its hands the tools to build our prison as well as tools that we can choose to use to escape from that prison.

Ooh. You could use both!

Lima, Echo, Victor — India, Oscar, Sierra — Alpha.