“Soccer analysis. Plus video content here.”

“We can now begin to see how longtermism might be self-defeating. Not only could its ‘fanatical’ emphasis on fulfilling our longterm potential lead people to, eg, neglect non-existential climate change, prioritise the rich over the poor and perhaps even ‘justify’ pre-emptive violence and atrocities for the ‘greater cosmic good’ but it also contains within it the very tendencies – Baconianism, capitalism and value-neutrality – that have driven humanity inches away from the precipice of destruction.

[…]

Yes, we will need advanced technologies if we wish to escape Earth before it’s sterilised by the Sun in a billion years or so. But the crucial fact that longtermists miss is that technology is far more likely to cause our extinction before this distant future event than to save us from it. If you, like me, value the continued survival and flourishing of humanity, you should care about the long term but reject the ideology of longtermism, which is not only dangerous and flawed but might be contributing to, and reinforcing, the risks that now threaten every person on the planet.”

“Introducing economic freedom enhances economic development if the population is oriented at long term benefits rather than short term gains.

High levels of uncertainty avoidance decrease the beneficial effects of economic freedom on economic development.”

Sounds a lot like “Give people freedom in an environment of trust.“

“Therapy helps to understand who you are, how you are. A lot of the challenges the players have stem from their emotional self and what they feel about themselves. I know a lot of players lose because they don’t think they deserve to win. You’ll see them get right to the brink of winning and then they can’t do it. Why? Something’s going on there. So they need to find out.”

“Given just a single shot at existence, we owe it to ourselves to hit the mark; we must not just survive but thrive. It’s no wonder that for many of us “the story of our lives becomes the story of the lives we were prevented from living.””

“The backpropagation algorithm has three steps.

1. Flow information forward through a network to compute a prediction.
2. Compute an error by comparing the prediction to a target value.
3. Flow the error backward through the network to update the weights.

The backpropagation algorithm requires information to flow forward and backward along the network. But biological neurons are one-directional.

[…]

The authors have unified predictive coding and backpropagation into a single theory of neural networks. Predictive coding and backpropagation are separate hardware implementations of what is ultimately the same algorithm.”

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.”

“Think, if you will for a moment, of Third World rebels and coups. Rebels are great at exposing and overthrowing corrupt hypocritical regimes, but seem noticeably less great at the mundane, non-negative tasks of then establishing a superior governing alternative. Victorious rebels, in fact, seem best at using their tough cynical rebel skills to avoid being rebelled against themselves—in other words they just become better tyrants.

And make no mistake: irony tyrannizes us. The reason why our pervasive cultural irony is at once so powerful and so unsatisfying is that an ironist is impossible to pin down. All irony is a variation on a sort of existential poker-face. All U.S. irony is based on an implicit “I don’t really mean what I say.” So what does irony as a cultural norm mean to say? That it’s impossible to mean what you say? That maybe it’s too bad it’s impossible, but wake up and smell the coffee already? Most likely, I think, today’s irony ends up saying: “How very banal to ask what I mean.” Anyone with the heretical gall to ask an ironist what he actually stands for ends up looking like a hysteric or a prig. And herein lies the oppressiveness of institutionalized irony, the too-successful rebel: the ability to interdict the question without attending to its content is tyranny. It is the new junta, using the very tool that exposed its enemy to insulate itself.”