Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youāll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutānāpaste it into its own post ā thereās no quota for posting and the bar really isnāt that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many āesotericā right wing freaks, but thereās no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iām talking redscare-ish, reality challenged āculture criticsā who write about everything but understand nothing. Iām talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyāre inescapable at this point, yet I donāt see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnāt be surgeons because they didnāt believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canāt escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
Following up on the thread that spawned from my comment yesterday:
https://awful.systems/comment/7777035
(Iām in vacation mode and forgot it was late on Sunday)
I wonder if Habryka, the LWer who posted both there and on Xhitter that āsomeone should do something about this troublesome pageā realized that there would be less pushback if heād simply coordinated in the background and got the edits in place without forewarning others. Was it intentional to try to pick a fight with Wikipedians?
Wow, this is shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_alignment
Edit: I have been informed that the correct statement in line with Wikipediaās policies is WP:WOWTHISISSHIT
Rather than trying to participate in the āarticle for deletionā dispute with the most pedantic nerds on Earth (complimentary) and the most pedantic nerds on Earth (derogatory), I will content myself with pointing and laughing at the citation to Scientific Reports, aka āwe have Nature at homeā
The whole list of āimprovedā sources is a fascinating catalogue of preprints, pop sci(-fi) schlock, and credible-sounding vanity publishers. And even most of those appear to reference āinner alignmentā as a small part of some larger things, which I would expect to merit something like a couple sentences in other articles. Ideally ones that start with āso thereās this one weird cult that believesā¦ā
Iām still allowed to dream, right?
I poked around the search results being pointed to, saw a Ray Kurzweil book and realized that none of these people are worth taking seriously. My condolences to anyone who tries to explain the problems with the āimprovedā sources on offer.
Maybe instead of worrying about obscure wiki pages, Habryka should reflect why a linkpost titled Racial Dating Preferences and Sexual Racism is on the front page of his precious community now, with 48 karma and 22 comments.
You know, just this once, I am willing to see the āDead Dove: Do Not Eatā label and be content to leave the bag closed.
Is it praxis when you put theory into inaction?
The wikipedia talk page is some solid sneering material. Itās like Habryka and HandofLixue canāt imagine any legitimate reason why Wikipedia has the norms it does, and they canāt imagine how a neutral Wikipedian could come to write that article about lesswrong.
Eigenbra accurately calling them outā¦
As to your question:
It seems to be ignorance on Habyrkaās part, but judging by the talk page, instead of acknowledging their ignorance of Wikipediaās reasonable policies, they seem to be doubling down.
Amazing how both accounts refuse to directly answer the āare you involved in LW/SSCā question, but work around that question so much (and get so defensive) that they are very suspicious.
Habryka runs the fucking site
Lol ow haha, jesus, admitting he is the lw sysadmin might have been nice.
Following up because the talk page keeps providing good materialā¦
Hand of Lixue keeps trying to throw around the Wikipedia rules like the other editors havenāt seen people try to weaponize the rules to push their views many times before.
Looking back on the original lesswrong
brigade organizingdiscussion of how to improve the wikipedia article, someone tried explaining to Habyrka the rules then and they were dismissive.Yes Habyrka, because you clearly have such a good understanding of the Wikipedia rules and normsā¦
Also, heavily downvoted on the lesswrong discussion is someone suggesting Wikipedia is irrelevant because LLMs will soon be the standard for āaccess to ground truthā. I guess even lesswrong knows that is bullshit.
Adding onto this chain of thought, does anyone else think the talk pageās second top-level comment from non-existent user āhabrykaā is a bit odd? Especially since after Eigenbra gives it a standard Wikipedian (i.e. unbearably jargon-ridden and a bit pedantic but entirely accurate and reasonable in its substance) reply, new user HandofLixue comes in with:
Kinda reads like theyāre the same person? I mean Habryka is also active further down the thread so this is almost certainly just my tinfoil hat being too tight and cutting off circulation and/or reading this unfold in bits and pieces rather than putting it all together.
I think theyāre different people but may be in communication out of band.
Because of course.
Habryka doesnāt really know how not to start fights
Or was it a consequence of the fact that capital-R Rationalists just donāt shut up?