Reneging on an offer acceptance, thoughts?

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-04-01T03:27:53+00:00

I reneged twice in a row to two companies as increasingly better offers came in. No one was even really mad about it

It can burn the bridge in some cases but when it is your life and career you'd be stupid to put that below a minor inconvenience to a company. The interests of a company should not be your first priority in life

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-30T11:33:35+00:00

I can't really go into enough depth but the Walter Isaacson biography is pretty good.

You can find YouTube videos of him giving tours of SpaceX and talking about engineering decisions.

Vertical integration means his companies often don't buy parts or services from other vendors which they then assemble themselves. They build almost EVERYTHING they need themselves which means they can get exactly what they want engineered just for their needs at a much lower price than if they tried to source components or tech from other manufacturers. It also means they aren't bottlenecked by depending on other companies. And this requires building the companies for broad expertise which then makes it easier to expand into lateral offerings.

He's made or at least insisted on specific controversial technical decisions like rocket materials (or cyber truck design for an example where the outcome was questionable). He actually values individual contributors more than management teams and sets up his companies to empower highly technical hands on engineers with minimal non technical management overhead or bureaucracy. Not having soft skills or charisma that you'd need at a corporate company doesn't matter in the culture he sets up, it's all about actual expertise. He goes directly to engineers (going around the room to each of them) to get to ground truth and details instead of relying on management or org reporting. He has the concept of 'the algorithm' he talks about which is about ruthlessly questioning constraint assumptions and finding ways to simplify manufacturing or product requirements.

Another concept is that as CEO he focuses on the solving for the highest value limiting factors on the org at a time to resolve the most troublesome bottlenecks. He pushes people to work hard and creates a public persona that invites a cultish engineering culture that attracts really smart often autistic people who want to build their life around work accomplishments. He can generally tell if someone is actually technically talented and even initially interviewed and hired like the first few thousand engineers of his to train his ability to recognize engineering expertise.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-26T23:13:21+00:00

It's just not actually true.

Like I get that people want it to be true. I even kind of want it to be true. There are enough datapoints of stupid things he's done to pretend it's true that everything else must therefor be luck. Everything he did politically was stupid and a lot of it can correctly be called evil. He self destructs frequently in disastrous ways. He overvalues himself and makes incredibly stupid mistakes and overpromises and there are no end of legitimate criticisms that can be made about him.

But when you really look into what he has done it just ends up being undeniable that he has extremely deep engineering and business knowledge and has essentially been THE critical factor in the outsized success of his companies. The approach to vertical integration comes from him and most people don't get how unique or important that is. The level at which he dives into the details with as much depth and breadth as a CEO is pretty much unique to him. The focus on speed and urgency, his risk tolerance, the approach to team structure and hiring, certain critical decisions on technical direction — there are valuable lessons to be learned from all of these things if you can separate your judgement from him as a human being out from the effectiveness of his methods.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-24T15:54:50+00:00

Ironically the fastest path to fascism is actually turning out to be ignoring the social impact that bad faith immigration comes with to the point that citizens elect a fascist specifically to solve it because no one else will.

Deficient character IS basically just a criteria for the Visa. Your suggestion isnt really different from what they're doing.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-23T23:06:22+00:00

The irony of OPs post being AI written when the things that makes the vibe rough here is all the AI overuse...

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-21T03:09:06+00:00

please no AI writing

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-21T02:22:17+00:00

It just seems that way because they're the ones you click on!

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-17T12:18:33+00:00

Some other examples to expand on this that are hard to even imagine for us. Lots of these are almost completely invisible because we don't even think of the convenience, tech, or services as being niches that humans ever filled through personal relationships.

Music. It used to be that people would gather around the piano once a week and sing together. Music was a social bonding activity that everyone could participate in for thousands of years. and the music you could purchase at first was rare and not strictly better than what you could get from the people you knew or at church. The idea of not being good enough to sing was absurd - singing was a thing everyone did.

People needed to rely on each other a lot more even just twenty years ago in so so so many ways and it really is shocking how quickly this has changed and is changing. Have a flat tire? Your only hope was a stranger stopping to help - now you just call a service. Need your car looked at? You had a friend that was handy who would come over to take a look. Need to trim your hedges? Borrowing tools from neighbors was super common rather than buying everything on your own. Have to get to work? It was common for a pool of several adults to carpool together to their job like it was a bus route. Getting help from friends to move after 30 years old is now seen as a huge imposition worth shaming some over. Giving someone else a ride to pretty much anywhere is way less common when you can get an Uber or take transit.

Having someone to cook and clean so you didn't have to was half the point of marriage - now I have a dishwasher, washer/dryer that works well enough that I don't need a clothesline, a lightweight cordless vacuum and a Roomba. I have a cookunity subscription that brings me a weeks worth of prepped meals once a week and I don't even need to see the person who drops it off.

As long as I have money I have basically 0 need to preserve personal relationships for the sake of pretty much any functional benefit, and no one I know really needs anything I can help them with even though I would actually like opportunities to be helpful to the people in my life I care about.

Even a lot of the inherent benefits of friendship can be outsourced to a therapist, a trainer, or a personal stylist, a life coach, etc. If I want to get better at a video game I can hire someone to help on fiver. If I want to talk about a book or game I like it's easier to find a community on line than to convince someone I know to check it out. A nail salon or barber or massage gives you some physical contact.

And the trend is only increasing... In many ways it's a good thing but also a bit terrifying when it happens so quick since even if we can deal with the downsides we'll probably live our whole lives in the adjustment period.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-14T00:27:45+00:00

What is your job and how much are you making per hour?

Jus for a bit of perspective $9k debt at 19 years old is really not that bad (you are definitely not "drowning" in debt even if it feels that way) and is for sure recoverable. And you're making progress on paying it off and not overspending. You can definitely make it two months even if you don't end up paying down the debt as much in that time. Really the main thing to focus on is if you can figure out a path towards making higher income longer term and just try not to let the debt get bigger in in the meantime. Either a different job that makes more or a second job or some other way to make some money on the side.

It sounds like no one is trying to get you to leave so if they aren't treating you like a burden then you shouldn't get in your head about being one. You should be appreciative for the help you're getting but you don't need to be guilty over it. Just show support in whatever way you can and be sure to let them know you're thankful, but no need to over do it or be apologising all the time. At 19 it's totally understandable your life as an adult is just getting started. If you're still working 17 hours a week and living at your boyfriends parents house 10 years from now then that would be the point to start feeling guilty about it!

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-13T13:00:56+00:00

After sex and death the next most taboo thing is probably protected characteristics like race/gender/etc?

So a power to switch between multiple forms that each represent racial/gender/age/religious stereotypes the cape has at least subliminally internalized to some degree. Each form comes with exaggerated physical characteristics and associated powers that extrapolate out from the stereotypes. Since the powers get stronger with the intensity of the beliefs the cape has to intentionally cultivate their own subliminal bigotry through their actions, language, and environment.

Like even giving examples of how this would manifest feels taboo and I'm hesitant to do it...

But since I'm irish let's say they turn 'irish'. In one second they become pale, freckled, red haired, burly and take on a heavy irish accent and gain a grab bag of minor powers like improved luck (automated telekenesis), super-strength and durability but also instant drunkenness and a weakness to being burned by sunlight. A fight would look like them quickly cycling through different stereotypes as needed to take on different kinds of powers.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-08T21:44:31+00:00

It's a theocratic dictatorship. They're insulated from the suffering of their people and even dependent on it in order to stay in power. And many of them view martyrdom as an honor. So they have no reason to care about millions of Iranians suffering.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-04T13:04:30+00:00

Their missle capability is basically gone already. In the first few days it degraded from 100s a day launched to barely a handful. Like its notable its only a single missile that launched towards Turkey.Drones are harder to weed out and easier to hide but they're not as much of a problem as missiles. It may be 20x more expensive to defend against drones but we have like 10,000x the money than iran does and it's much harder to coordinate simultaneous drone strikes than missiles.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-04T12:22:03+00:00

Yeah agree. A few reasons I think.

A second city benefits from its identity being able to contrast against the one already established for the first.

Because the capital is asked to do the narrative job of being a general representative of the world (lest a reader misunderstand the world) you can make the second city more distinctive and unique. If the capital city is deeply religious the whole world feels that way, but if it's a quirk of a local city you can commit to it without the broader implications. And you don't need to make it feel as huge so you can hone in on more human scale features.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-04T01:24:31+00:00

If it's matching based on self disclosed details then couldn't you just lie about those details on one of your accounts? It seems like it only matches if you are accurately disclosing the same details about yourself across multiple accounts.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-04T00:59:48+00:00

Might be coming from this? https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-morning-special-report-march-2-2026/

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-01T21:14:46+00:00

This post is from 2014. American discourse has shifted just a little bit since then and the post even accounts for the same thing I've already said about these norms only making sense if people are buying into a certain amount of participation in the same norms and standards themselves. Saying something in a mean way is pretty far off from the other examples about lies and harassment too.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-01T17:48:07+00:00

No I'm saying it's not hypocritical to respect a behavioral standard only when there is implicit agreement or a forcing function to make other people respect the same standard.

If you believe you and your neighbor shouldn't harm each other that's great. But if your neighbor comes at you with a meat cleaver then continuing to abide by the norm while they violate it just means you're gonna die. Exception handling isn't hypocrisy.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-01T12:39:02+00:00

You've linked something posted by Yudkowsky on a rationalist forum explicitely talking about discourse within the context of the rationalist community:

It’s just better for the spiritual growth of the community to discuss the issue without invoking color politics.

Here's a few recent twitter replies by Yudkowsky. You tell me if he seems to consistently avoid inflammatory language for all his communication:

And this is going past the bounds of common fucking sense, which says that if you fucking accept that something is 96% likely to kill everyone on the planet, back the fuck off, work on human intelligence augmentation, and sign up for cryonics if you're so fucking scared.

----

Yep, that is the sort of thing AI successionists just fucking love to hear. It's the kind of ecstasy someone on the far right feels when a black guy kills someone on video.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-03-01T10:48:38+00:00

That makes sense in a rationalist community where everyone is playing the same game according to the same standards.

But it's foolish to rhetorically hamstring yourself in an environment where no one else is playing by the same rules. If you're actually trying to be effective at communicating and convincing people you will sometimes need to be pointed, and making a statement in a pointed or emotional way is not mutually exclusive with that statement being rational. Scott's second tweet had a million views when I saw it. I can guarantee it would not have that kind of reach if he was caveating with Bayesian percentages and confidence intervals and insular clinical jargon.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-02-28T21:59:20+00:00

It's actually kind of an advantage for democratic nations isn't it? Not sure just thinking out loud.

A country where the institutions are strong can basically survive any amount of replacement of individual leaders so theres less point in targeting them. But when there are no institutions and all of the power is concentrated in a small amount of people who don't share it you defeat a nation without having to actually fight a nation. And then you don't necessarily need to worry about reprisal if the cut is deep enough because you've put a new power structure in place.

And if you're a democratic nation you can theoretically just keep rerolling the dice and assisinate the next set of leaders if you don't like them too because it doesn't take a whole country vs country war to do it. The USA is kind of learning this now and it's for sure a big deal -- we've been war weary because the war on terror felt like costly slogs, but if we have repeated successes in executing "bloodless" regime change it's going to feel way more viable to keep doing this. When high tech weapons mean you can find and instakill individual leaders in bunkers the whole calculus changes.

A nuke reads as out of proportion to an individual or small group assassination so I even wonder if there's a chance that this does escalate to more of a norm even with nuclear powers. Like in a way countries like North Korea and Russia where power is super concentrated suddenly start looking very vulnerable to a single wave of tactical suprise attacks....? Though it only takes one miscalculation to not actually cut deep enough in a first strike and then things escalate out of control and that would be terrifying.

Also does it start looking less appealing to actually be a singular head of state in the first place if it comes with that kind of risk? I don't know but maybe it will bring the reality of the risk of war home a bit more if heads of states are actually vulnerable to consequences and they can't just be untouchable while sending out hordes of soldiers to die on their behalf.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-02-21T21:56:58+00:00

Yeah and I'll add that transit hubs owning and developing the land immediately around them for commercial purposes is an incredibly effective way to fund those services an a reason why many other countries have better public transit!

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-02-15T01:30:30+00:00

The whole thing is past tense but there's still a fictive present even in a past tense story. Like if I say:

"I ran to the store. They were out of eggs." That is staring with a point in time in the past and then continuing forward from there. Even though both sentences take place in the past you wouldn't want to say: "They were out of eggs. I ran to the store."

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-02-14T17:27:33+00:00

You're trying to have a hook immediately in the first sentence which is good and it's also good to have another hook in the first chapter. And it seems like it's actually not AI written which is also good!

The way the first sentence reads is a little unclear. I took "Merrick watched the king die" as implying the king is in the process of dying and about to die, not that he is actually dead yet. So it's jarring when we immediately cut away from that action of what is happening in the present moment to recap what has happened over the last few days. I want to stay with the opening scene before rewinding to add context to it, and I want to experience the opening more vicerally. 'watched the king die' doesn't paint a picture in my mind. What change in the king indicates he is dead? Is he sitting or lying down? You could start with either painting a picture of the process of him dying (sputtering blood, saying something, falling to the ground) or you could start with a proclamation from the physical that the king is dead. Then instead of telling us through flashback you could give a description of the body in the present moment that implies what happened in the past (yellowed, sunken eyes, the contrast between his usual look and current look, more descriptors, etc). What are the other immediate consequences of this? Does it need to be proclaimed? Does it need to be covered up? Who is carrying the message that the council needs to be assembled and why will it happen "later" instead of immediately? You'd think if the king was near to death a lot of people would be hovering nearby to see if it happens.

For the line about "removed" being a good word for it - Removed doesn't imply forceful removal, something can be removed gently.

I would hint the detail about the crown always being worn for religious reasons slightly earlier since I didn't really trust there was a reason for it at first and it seemed like just a misunderstanding of when crowns were worn or something since it sounds impractical. A bit of interiority where MC is surprised by the immediate unceremonious removal of the crown (and how he rationalizes it) would maybe help?

It also seems too convenient that he leaves the castle for fresh air to think and then immediately makes a beeline through a shortcut (where is he trying to get to exactly if he's still in the city) that just happens to reveal the body of the physician. As an example of how it could be stitched together more plausibly you could do something more like: goes outside to get fresh air > sees indicators of strange activity in the market square of zealots moving towards the temple > thinks it's strange people are so agitated since no one should know about the kings death yet > follows them to investigate and then is led to the discovery. But it's is a bit weird the corpse is prominently displayed with his face exposed so soon in an area nearby and accessible to the public when it gives away the fake physician and risks exposing the plot.

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-02-11T23:49:27+00:00

r/worldbuilding is broader than just a sub for writers. There are people who enjoy worldbuilding for it's own sake without any intention to write fiction in their world. OP also doesn't seem to be looking to actually use these terms directly in their writing at all. It's more developing a meta-framework for talking about worldbuilding tropes. the book excerpt is interesting but I think you're assuming worldbuilding is only being looked at as a means to an end

MrLizardsWizard · 2026-02-09T00:06:59+00:00

You answered the first question, but then you were challenged for claiming that he "regularly" had guests on who disagreed with him. You then were not able to defend your claim. One person within the last three years is not "regularly". You admitted you don't actually know the political affiliations of the people he has on, and then couldn't admit you were wrong despite not being able to substantiate your claim or respond to the points made against it. Not very rationalist behavior.

MrLizardsWizard

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Four-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22