I’ve done this a lot, so I’m speaking from experience. I haven’t been compromising on location (closeness to where I need to be), only on comfort. It probably depends on where you’re travelling to though.

If you’re a low-maintenance kind of person that just wants a pull-out sofa to sleep on, a shower, and possibly a kettle+microwave to make coffee+bad food for a day or two, you can find Airbnbs at ¼ the price of a hotel.

Sometimes they literally don’t have the ability to press 1.

Which is why I’m saying it should go through automatically after a short delay.

It’s easy to say “just over staff” until you’re faced with the reality that maybe once every five years, for a grand total of one hour, you’re faced with call pressure 1000 times higher than the second highest spike. It’s not viable to staff a response center to deal with thousands of people calling in the same bomb attack or shooting within minutes, when you normally see on the order of hundreds of calls per week.

What you need is the capacity to deal with 99.99… % of situations, and a safety mechanism to prevent the remaining situations from overloading your system more than necessary.

In a mass casualty event, you need to be able to filter out the people making redundant reports in order to effectively handle the important reports. You need to do that without blocking out the important reports, that’s the hard part.

You really don’t need an AI for this though. With the number of mass shootings the US sees, it’s honestly shocking that they don’t have a button the operator can press to activate an auto-reply along the lines of “We are already responding to <event>, if you still want to talk to us, press 1 or wait for a reply.”, which waits something like 10s before going through.

This would filter out a bunch of duplicate reporting with far less effort, and with less odds of something going wrong.

One thing is the 58 000 that have to re-take the exam. I’m just as interested in the 2% of exam-takers that were terminated due to “unspecified conduct issues”, and how many of those were unfairly thrown out for cheating without having done anything wrong…

Thanks for being understanding and engaging in good faith :)

I think making vaccines legally mandated is an interesting discussion. On one hand, I think they should be mandated for reason that they are, statistically, proven to reduce overall harm to people. On the other hand, it think it’s a bit scary to go that way, since we are then putting a lot of trust in whatever political body will decide which vaccines have a risk/benefit profile that should make them mandatory. It’s a lot easier with seat belts or construction practices, since there are literally no downsides to either.

I’ve had a thought experiment with others about a hypothetical autonomous car that is guaranteed to never end up in (or cause) any accident, but has an astronomically small probability of spontaneously combusting at any given moment. Let’s make that probability small enough that the number of deaths and injuries caused by cars every year is reduced to 1 % of what it currently is, with the remaining incidents being caused by the spontaneously combusting cars. Now, for any individual, it’s statistically safer to drive this car. As a society, everyone is safer if these cars are mandated (no pedestrians are killed, we don’t need to spend healthcare resources on car-related injuries, etc.).

From a utilitarian perspective, these cars should be mandated. From a purely logical risk-minimisation perspective, everyone should be jumping at the opportunity to use this much safer car. However, when you ask people, it turns out that most don’t want the car. Despite knowing that this car would (statistically) drastically reduce their probability of being hurt or killed in traffic, the idea of getting into a vehicle that can spontaneously combust at any given moment seems absurd to them.

That brings us to the “Twinge of doubt for something that has been so successful”. We humans are generally terrible at risk assessment. We tend to heavily over emphasise extreme outcomes (the car combusting) while also under emphasising “mundane” outcomes (people crash and die every day, but it surely won’t happen to me), and overestimating our own skills (by far most drivers think they’re above average, and can therefore avoid collisions). The analogous vaccine-related line of thought would be that people hear that 1 / <large number> get severe complications from vaccines, which is over emphasised, while “hundreds of people in the US are killed by tuberculosis every year, but it surely won’t happen to me”, and overestimating our own immune system.

Basically, a lot of fear is simply irrational, and that’s linked to the human nature of being crap at intuitive risk assessment. I think fear of vaccines also falls into this category of irrational fear, and I don’t really think it can be rationalised away. That’s why I think programs to counter vaccine scepticism need to be based in how to make the rational fear of disease win out, rather than trying to completely dispel the irrational fear far too many people have related to vaccines.

I honestly think you’re misunderstanding me a bit here. I’m not advocating for privileging anti-vaxxer rhetoric or jumping through hoops to “let them have some wins”. I’m trying to underscore that the first step to developing education, informational campaigns, deprogramming regimes, etc. is to understand the thought process behind becoming an anti-vaxxer. There are plenty of comments in this thread alone along the lines of “When presented a choice between a small risk of a mild fever versus getting tuberculosis, obviously the correct choice is to get the vaccine”. I think that line of argumentation is counter-productive, since it

1. Underplays the documented risk of many vaccines
2. Doesn’t address the core issue I think causes vaccine scepticism in the first place.

Firstly, nobody who’s afraid of getting a vaccine due to the associated risks will be convinced by “The only risk is a small risk of a light fever”, since that’s just provably false. Secondly, the line of argumentation anchors on the risk associated with vaccines, rather than anchoring on the risk associated with not getting them. Since I think the root cause of vaccine scepticism is irrational fear of getting them, I think it’s more productive to anchor counter arguments, education, information campaigns, etc. on the very real danger associated with not having vaccines. Since fear is the underlying driving force here, we should aim to make fear of the disease outweigh fear of vaccines, not by down-playing the risk of vaccines, but rather by emphasising the risk of the diseases (which many or most vaccine sceptics downplay into absurdity).

Basically, many vaccines do have a very low but non-zero probability of causing severe side effects. We humans are known to place irrationally large weight on these kind of unlikely but severe outcomes. Trying to downplay these outcomes is not likely affect peoples perception of the risk, because we’re notoriously bad at this kind of risk assessment.

It will never be about the science, because we already know they’re completely wrong about everything and therefore they need to make science irrelevant.

I think there’s an interesting discussion to be had here regarding cause and effect. You seem to be arguing that these people do not believe in science, therefore they end up as conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, etc. I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case. I think it’s common that people first establish a gut feeling regarding what is true, then begin disbelieving science when science disagrees with them. Basically, I think the casual chain is inverted relative to you. Of course, once people have started disbelieving science, the rabbit hole is open.

the supposed strat of… agreeing them out of their position(?)

That’s not really what I’m arguing for. My point is that it never strengthens your position to disagree with things you know are correct, just to try to make a point. If someone says “water is denser than oil, therefore 1 L of water is heavier than 2 L of oil.”, it doesn’t help you to start by disagreeing with the initial statement. Likewise, when someone says “vaccines cause dangerous side effects, therefore …”, it doesn’t help your position to disagree with the initial statement, which is well documented to be true. An immediate example that comes to mind is that the Astra Zeneca (I think) COVID vaccine caused several deaths due to triggering a very rare heart complication (if I remember the details correctly). If your initial counter argument is “vaccines don’t cause deadly side effects”, you can immediately be brushed off as having no idea what you’re talking about, since it’s well documented that they do. Any successful counter argument needs to start by acknowledging what is correct in the initial statement, before dialling in on why the conclusion is wrong.

The point of the trolley problem is not to use it to convince the vaccine sceptics, but to use research on it to understand how they think, and thereby understand how they can be convinced. Surveys have consistently shown that not all people agree on what to do in the trolley problem situation (around 10 % choose to do nothing). It’s only a false dilemma if you view it from a utilitarian standpoint, but the whole point of the thought experiment is exactly to compare a utilitarian standpoint to other views. There’s quite a bit of research regarding the psychology of how we experience the consequences of action vs. inaction, and it appears that humans instinctively prefer inaction over actions with negative consequences, even when inaction carries more negative consequences. The book “Thinking fast and slow” by Daniel Kahneman goes into some detail on this. I think a lot of vaccine scepticism is grounded in this instinctive response, which in turn causes people to disbelieve science due to confirmation bias.

Trolley problem is just a pros and cons list made visceral.

I fundamentally disagree with this, and it seems to me that many others do as well. The trolley problem is fundamentally about the morality of allowing something bad to happen through inaction, versus actively choosing a lesser evil.

While it’s true that the numbers can influence what people answer here, the numbers are not the core point of the thought experiment. The core point of the thought experiment relates to whether you are personally responsible for the consequences of inaction, versus your responsibility for the consequences of direct action.

Crucially, as discussed in depth in Daniel Kahnemans’ “Thinking Fast and Slow”, humans appear to be instinctively averse to taking actions with known negative consequences, even when they know that the consequences of inaction are worse. This is supported by the experiment referenced in the wikipedia page linked above.

The point here is that we can try to understand vaccine sceptics line of thought by understanding why humans appear to have this aversion. As mentioned in my first comment, I’m well vaccinated, and know fully well that statistically, both for myself and others, getting relevant vaccines is the right choice. Regardless, I felt a twinge of doubt when getting my initial covid shots. Not due to any logical reasoning, but an instinctive gut feeling: It felt more risky to actively expose myself to a vaccine rather than do nothing, even though I know the opposite is true. I very quickly overcame that twinge of doubt because I try to make decisions based on facts rather than feelings. While anecdotal, this is a concrete example of how human intuition does not always match actual statistics and logically sound decision making.

I think that if we want to prevent vaccine scepticism from spreading, one place to start is trying to understand why people think along these lines: That direct action infers a heavier responsibility than inaction. The first place to start in that regard is recognising that the trolley problem is a very real dilemma for many people, and that surveys have consistently shown that not all people make the same choice in trolley problem situations, even though the correct choice seems obvious to many of us.

By using much smaller numbers, you are giving a false impression of vaccines.

Sure, I could have used more realistic numbers here, I won’t argue that. However, I hope I’ve been able to convince you that my point is not related to the numbers, but to the underlying psychology of making these choices, regardless of the numbers. Therefore, I just pulled some numbers out of the air to construct the example in the OC.

The “trolley problem” is a philosophical dilemma regarding the morality of allowing harm caused by inaction versus causing harm by direct action. In a common form of the dilemma, you are faced with a situation where a train trolley is headed to hit a number of people. You have the option to pull a lever that will direct the trolley to hit a smaller number of people, thus actively condemning that smaller number.

The argument can be made (though I disagree with it), that you are “more responsible” for deaths caused by pulling the lever than those caused by inaction. Whether or not you agree with this argument, plenty of research has shown that humans are typically very averse to causing known harm by direct action, even though they know that inaction will cause greater harm. That is: “Human instinct” in the trolley problem seems to be to not pull the lever, even though a majority of people agree that it is the morally correct decision.

Finally, the above discussion is more or less completely independent of the number of people on the two tracks. Whether it’s 1:2, or 1:1 000 000 doesn’t really change the moral argument of action vs. inaction. If you get into the kind of numbers where the number of deaths would have global secondary consequences, you have a new kind of dilemma though. However that’s not the case here, hence my choice of pulling two arbitrary numbers out of a hat, rather than using actual numbers for vaccine side effects and infection lethality.

What I’m doing here is noting that the question of vaccinating or not is philosophically equivalent to the trolley problem. Therefore, we can use research of the trolley problem to understand how vaccine sceptics think, and to learn something about how people can be convinced that pulling the lever is the morally correct choice.

I’m among the most thoroughly vaccinated people around, after living in both SE Asia and South America. I’m also relatively well versed in statistics and am well aware that if your goal is to optimise for a good and healthy life, getting vaccinated is a no-brainier.

Finally, I think that if we want to convince people that are sceptical of vaccines to get them, or give them to their children, we should start by

1. Acknowledging that plenty of common vaccines have extremely rare, but nonetheless potentially severe side effects.
2. There is an actual ethical/philosophical dilemma that has been discussed for thousands of years regarding the morality of harm caused be action vs. inaction.

The dilemma that has shown up in countless philosophical debates throughout history is basically the trolley problem: “If you press this button, there’s a 1/1000 chance that someone (e.g. your child) dies. If you don’t, there’s a 1/100 chance that they die.” To me personally, the choice is easy (I press the button), but I recognise that people see this as a dilemma. There’s plenty of research on how we humans tend to prefer inaction over actions that could cause damage, even when that choice is statistically unreasonable.

Based on this, I think the most productive way to engage with people that are sceptical of vaccines due to this very human mode of decision failure, is to engage with the philosophical question above, and trying to convince them that inaction (not taking the vaccine) is, in fact, also a choice that they are responsible for. I think brushing the dilemma off as trivial is a bit reductionist, considering that the trolley problem is one that has been so widely discussed through the ages (even though I personally think it’s an easy choice).

Of course, if people are just blatantly ignoring or refuting established scientific results, there’s not much you can do…

It’s all about your current situation. For a lot of people 50k could be what they need to get out of an immediate bad spot that could start to spiral (credit card debt etc.), and give them the needed breathing room to stabilise their situation.

For my own part, I would probably just dump the 50k directly into my mortgage in order to reduce my recurring expenses a bit. It would make me live a bit more comfortably, but wouldn’t be life changing in any way. In other words, I would probably flip the coin. However, I can definitely understand why someone else would choose differently.

Some Chinese institution: lies

Some journalist: Points it out

Chinese government: “Stop spreading these baseless lies about us!”

This guy: “There sure is a lot of Sinophobia around here these days!”

So much the last bit! I can’t count the number of times our CEO has either sent a mail or created an issue (very small company) with something along the lines of “X is broken”, when what they mean is “I don’t like the design choice behind X.” Like, whatever they’re complaining about is completely functional, it just doesn’t work exactly the way they envisioned it. When explaining why it can’t (or shouldn’t) work exactly the way they envisioned, there’s maybe a 50 % chance that “X is broken” turns into “oh, I hadn’t thought about that”.

It honestly shocks me how stupid people are. There was just a case in the news about some guys that were busted while planning an attack on the White House UFC thing recently. They had initiated contact about this on tiktok (before moving to signal). One of the guys had posted photos on instagram of training with one of the others. The first guy that was busted had been reported by his parents, who he lived with, because they had overheard phone conversations that made them worried. They had anlso noticed he had begun stockpiling weapons, ammo, and other gear. All of them had quit their job to make time for the planning + attack.

Like, I’m glad these people were caught so that a bunch of innocents weren’t killed. What baffles me is how intensely stupid it’s possible to get. What would make anyone even consider communicating about this kind of stuff on a digital platform? How does anyone think it’s a good idea to suddenly start stockpiling weapons in broad daylight? In what world do you document this training online? Why in gods name would you quit your job out of the blue while doing all the above?

We’re just lucky these people are so stupid…

When you just look at the modern map it’s absurd to think about the number of people that live in Africa north of Sahara. It looks like a wasteland that stretches all the way to the coast.

Also, with this timeline, it seems plausible that the earliest Egyptian empires may have been around just early enough to actually experience this desertification. No doubt countless tribal peoples had (or have) oral histories describing how their homeland was eaten away by desert.

that also find creative ways to kill themselves

I have a friend that’s a sheep farmer, and this bit is what surprised me most the first time she showed me around the farm. Her sheep graze in the mountains as long as there isn’t snow, so they’re probably in decent shape compared to sheep a lot of other places. STILL, she said she would find sheep every now and then that had lain down wrong, tipped over, and were unable to get up. They would literally die if she didn’t find them and right them up.

Apparently, it’s something about how their organs move around, which makes them all slide over to the side if the sheep lies on its side. Once that happens, their center of mass is shifted too far over, and they’ll fall over again when they try to get up. The way to fix them was to roll them over on their belly and keep them there until their organs had slid back into place…

Slavery the same way using a dog to herd sheep is slavery. If you’ve ever seen one of those dogs at work, you’ll realise that there is nothing else in the world they would rather be doing. You let them herd sheep and they’re so happy they’re basically out of their mind. I honestly think it’s hard for us humans to even imagine loving just one thing so much that you would never do anything else if you had the choice.

I know a guy that rents out goats for a similar purpose of keeping down vegetation, they go under power lines in the mountains (places inaccessible with machines), and just graze there. These goats are literally living the best life a goat could ever dream of: They’re chilling out in their natural habitat, with more food security than any wild animal could hope for, and are completely protected from predators. In the winter, they’re kept warm and fed, so they don’t starve or die of exposure as a lot of them would in the wild.

Imagine if we treated people this way, just providing for everyone’s basic needs and let people do whatever made them happy…

T I A N M A N S Q U A R E

H O N G K O N G

U I G H U R S

T I B E T

C O N S T A N T L Y L Y I N G T O M Y F A C E A B O U T R A N D O M C R A P

thisisanunfriendlynation.wav

howdareyougiveachinesedissidentthepeaceprize.jpg

wedefinitelyarentsurveilingyou.mp4

definitely_not_some_stolen_tech.png

“No, that’s not a child in the factory! Why would you spread such baseless lies?!”

I think a significant difference this time was that they elected the idiot again, after Biden had spent four years trying to douse the flames, and the guy still wasn’t in jail. It became clear to us in a different way what kind of country we’re dealing with: A country that will see a blatantly corrupt facist attempt a coup, and will elect him again four years later rather than imprison him.

With earlier ones like Bush there were always some easing circumstances: When you look back at Bush today there’s no doubt that he was orders of magnitude more mentally stable that the orange one, while also largely playing by the rules (by that I mean, not attempting a violent coup after his second term).

With trump it’s gone too far. This isn’t just about political disagreement anymore, it’s about electing someone that respects the basic facts about how the world works. Someone that can’t just look at you with a straight face and lie about something you’re both seeing right in front of you.