Some universities with large endowments used to be referred to as hedge funds that happened to have professors. Now they happen to have pro sports teams too.
Think about the demand and supply curves of calculations (or computation). For most of history, they moved in tandem, with supply moving slightly faster, so computers would always do more at slightly lower costs.
Now both curves are speeding up, but demand is moving faster, so the costs of hardware are going up. And when high end servers (with GPUs) are unavailable, people hold onto the older ones longer.
Logic is an awesome tool that took us from Greek philosophers to the gates on our computers. The challenge with pure rationalism is checking the first principles that the thinking comes from. Logic can lead you astray if the principles are wrong, or you miss the complexity along the way.
On the missing first principles, look at Aristotle. One of the history's greatest logicians came to many false conclusions.
On missing complexity, note that Natural Selection came from empirical analysis rather than first principles thinking. (It could have come from the latter, but was too complex) [1]
This doesn't discount logic, it just highlights that answers should always come with provisional humility.
The ‘rationalist’ group being discussed here aren't Cartesian rationalists, who dismissed empiricism; rather, they're Bayesian empiricists. Bayesian probability turns out to be precisely the unique extension of Boolean logic to continuous real probability that Aristotle (nominally an empiricist!) was lacking. (I think they call themselves “rationalists” because of the ideal of a “rational Bayesian agent” in economics.)
However, they have a slogan, “One does not simply reason over the joint conditional probability distribution of the universe.” Which is to say, AIXI is uncomputable, and even AIXI can only reason over computable probability distributions!
They can call themselves empiricists all they like, it only takes a few exposures to their number to come away with a firm conviction (or, let's say, updated prior?) that they are not.
First-principles reasoning and the selection of convenient priors are consistently preferenced over the slow, grinding work of iterative empiricism and the humility to commit to observation before making overly broad theoretical claims.
The former let you seem right about something right now. The latter more often than not lead you to discover you are wrong (in interesting ways) much later on.
Who are all the rationalists you guys are reading?
I read the NYT and rat blogs all the time. And the NYT is not the one that's far more likely to deeply engage with the research and studies on the topic.
Bayesian inference is very, very often used in the types of philosophical/speculative discussions that Rationalists like instead of actual empirical study. It's a very convinient framework for speculating wildly while still maintaining a level of in-principle rationality, since, of course, you [claim that] you will update your priors if someone happens to actually study the phenomenon in question.
The reality is that reasoning breaks down almost immediately if probabilities are not almost perfectly known (to the level that we know them in, say, quantum mechanics, or poker). So applying Bayesian reasoning to something like the number of intelligent species in the galaxy ("Drake's equation"), or the relative intelligence of AI ("the Singularity") or any such subject allows you to draw any conclusion you actually wanted to draw all along, and then find premises you like to reach there.
Logic is the study of what is true, and also what is provable.
In the most ideal circumstances, these are the same. Logic has been decomposed into model theory (the study of what is true) and proof theory (the study of what is provable). So much of modern day rationalism is unmoored proof theory. Many of them would do well to read Kant's "The Critique of Pure Reason."
Unfortunately, in the very complex systems we often deal with, what is true may not be provable and many things which are provable may not be true. This is why it's equally as important to hone your skills of discernment, and practice reckoning as well as reasoning. I think of it as hearing "a ring of truth," but this is obviously unfalsifiable and I must remain skeptical against myself when I believe I hear this. It should be a guide toward deeper investigation, not the final destination.
Many people are led astray by thinking. It is seductive. It should be more commonly said that thinking is but a conscious stumbling block on the way to unconscious perfection.
I'm just going to defend Aristotle a bit. His incomplete logic and metaphysics nevertheless provided a powerful foundation to inquire into many aspects of the world that his predecessors did not do, nor do systematically. His community did not shy away from empirical research in biology. They all came to wrong conclusions in some things, but we should rather fault their successors for not challenging them.
You stated one of their core doctrines, something they’ve been loudly preaching for as long as they’ve existed, as though it was something they disagree with and had never even considered. Can you blame them for a bit of exasperation? For wanting to simply downvote-and-disengage from someone who makes up falsehoods about them and then gloats about how it annoyed them? Life is too short to tilt at windmills.
As an undergrad I had an argument with my Theory professor on if #s could ever be truly random. I believed they couldn't, they could just be #s we don't know in advance, but that everything was actually predetermined. His response, "If needed, we could get them at a quantum level."
I didn't have the Physics knowledge at the time to realize he was right.
There isn't enough data to make a blanket recommendation, so here are some things to consider. All are generalities and can be ignored if certain specifics override them, so use your judgment.
- If your employer is doing well, it is better to stay longer and get promoted from within. (Based on "Relatively good one" I'll assume this is the case.)
- If your employer reorganizes frequently, is supports the "Stick it out case."
- If your employer encourages people to find their own new jobs within the company, that is usually the best route. (This isn't always the situation. In many companies you need your current boss's blessing) Based on your explanation it seems like this isn't the case.
- If you are learning a lot, add that to the case to stay.
- If your new manager has ethical issues (as opposed to just competence issues) start your search right now. Not 30 minutes from now. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Now.
- Same if you're put on any kind of performance improvement plan (PIP). Don't think "I'm competent, I can work my way out of it". PIPs are paper trails to keep them from getting sued. Consider the duration of the PIP to be your severance.
- As you've figured out, it's rarely a good idea to go over your manager's head unless you have an outstanding relationship with the CEO or similar who would ask you later "Why didn't you come to me first?"
- If you have to leave, find a new job first. Then be professional on the way out, and don't throw your manager under the bus. Just say, "I really enjoyed working for you, a dream opportunity came up." You never know when they'll be asked for a back-door reference check on you.
- Similarly, don't badmouth your boss when you interview. (You don't want to seem like someone easily discontented.) You can say "It's now or never to leave, and I think your company has a much better future. I'd rather invest in my career there."
> If your employer is doing well, it is better to stay longer and get promoted from within. (Based on "Relatively good one" I'll assume this is the case.)
It’s almost always easier to get promoted by changing jobs where you control the narrative than try to go through the internal process. Besides that because of salary compression, you usually get paid less even after a promotion than someone coming in at that level. Yes this is true at FAANG size companies too.
The manager I had that seemed like this at first was lying about things constantly, presenting different information to her peers, her reports and her manager. If I had the time over again I would have quit the job the very first time I thought “I should get this in writing”, even though at the time I just thought she was incompetent.
- Asking you to lie about the status of your work in a status report. (Hiding bad news)
- Deliberately misrepresenting how much something will cost. (Or did cost)
- Asking you to interview someone from a competitor purely to gain market intelligence.
- Falsely blaming another team for mistakes.
- Misrepresenting financial metrics or KPIs.
Micromanagement can be bad, though sometimes it's needed and sometimes it's a symptom of a weak manager doing what they need to in order to stay accountable. Sometimes it's a control tool for sociopaths. When the ethical boundaries are crossed, it's a symnptom of sociopathy.
1 - The median apartment this year may be different than the median apartment 3 years ago. Perhaps cheaper (or smaller) apartments and houses are coming up for rent. A more accurate measure would be comparing the prior rents to new rents for existing places.
2 - Median doesn't equal mean. The 50th percentile apartment may be cheaper, while the 25th (more applicable for housing affordability discussion) or 75th (more applicable to HN readers) may be higher.
3 - The median is still up 20% over pre-pandemic levels.
4 - To measure housing shortage we should check levels of homelessness based on economic reasons. (Much more complicated than median price)
reply