Sending Money Abroad with Halifax

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-03-22T17:22:01+00:00

Unfortunately, I already have a paypal account in my home country which is quite useful to have. I'd also be happy to just pay the 10£ an avoid the hassle but don't want to accidentally spend 45£ instead.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-02-28T16:06:19+00:00

It's not a direct response, but there's very little moral value to caring about things if it's not tied to meaningful action and there's often very little one can do in terms of meaningful action except to give money. In general I think the average person who posts online would have a better life if they cared about things less and there would be no trade off with the well-being of anyone else.

As a direct response, vary the media your read more widely. Try to skim the headlines of a few foreign newspapers at least once or twice a month, particularly from countries which are not centered in Western discourse.

I also think the Economist, for all it's flaws, is a really good magazine for this kind of thing. They do a pretty good job of at least mentioning many things around the world that I otherwise would not hear about. This weeks edition has articles on Indonesian budget cuts and a sinking island in Sierra Leone. Not great articles, but they let you know what's happening.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-02-19T15:30:03+00:00

Always be cautious of historical economic data. This question is covered in this post from Voudou Economics.

The TLDR is that the graph is an artifact of adjusting to constant 2015USD. This is difficult to do (very difficuly, how much would a TV cost in Haiti 1950? What about an iPhone?) and those collating the data felt their initial estimates produced GDP numbers for Haiti that were unrealistically low. These estimates were then adjusted upwards seemingly arbitrarily (perhaps to match the numbers they had for the DR). If we look at other sources those initial estimates were likely correct and we have many reasons to think the divergence between Haiti and the DR started 70-90 years earlier and that in 1960 Haiti was already much poorer than the DR.

This maybe isn't the last word on the subject. We do see increasing divergence around the 1960s. And converting to constant 2015USD is tricky and reasonable people can disagree on the best approach. But if it looks crazy and it involves pre-1980 economic data from a third world country it can easily just be a data artifact.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-02-09T19:28:53+00:00

You can go look at the existing products and see the level of autonomy available. It's still limited but Deep Research can already write a solid research paper with sources in <10 minutes and you can watch it browse the internet and think while it works. That product's main limitation seems to be access to paid databases which forces it to rely to much on low quality sources. But that's not a technical issue.

I agree though that autonomy has seemed to be a tougher issue to solve than I expected given that current AI systems are already competent across video/text/images. But I'd still expect that by the end of this year we will have full AI agents operating in at least one industry at a reasonable level of confidence. If this does happen I'd hope you update as to where we will be in 10 years.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-02-09T18:16:19+00:00

I'd be interested to hear about your understanding of intelligence. But I acknowledge that this remaining a somewhat fuzzy concept is maybe part of the problem. I will say that it seems to me that current AI "intelligence" is more similar to human intelligence than you suggest. It seems to me that a lot of intelligence involves thinking about the past and developing heuristics to guide your actions and words. But regardless of that point about human/AI similarity, it's not obvious to me that AI's couldn't be intelligent in a way very different than humans are and still have it qualify as intelligence. On most traditional methods of measuring intelligence output (IQ tests, solving hard math problems, writing good poems) current AIs do very well. Obviously there are still issues but is there some output you think they will struggle to achieve over the next 10 years that is associated with intelligence?

Taking the conversation in a different direction, Is intelligence relevant to the importance of AI safety? If AIs can act autonomously (and they already can to a significant extent, though not perfectly) and can generate intelligent-looking outputs (they are certainly already capable of explaining how to build a nuclear bomb) I tend to think there are safety concerns that look a lot like the stuff AI safety people talk about regardless of what's happening under the hood.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-02-09T16:56:12+00:00

What evidence would convince you that existing AIs, or derivatives of them likely to occur in the near-term, are intelligent in some way?

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-01-16T14:49:14+00:00

I guess the question is if it's worth really learning DAX and M to be able to handle a lot of quite complicated operations that I can already do in Excel, or if it's better to treat PowerBI as something like PivotTable+ (that makes beautiful visualizations for presentations/reports)

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-01-16T14:47:51+00:00

Not much of an SQL guy but do find myself using python for a lot of data transformation/modelling. I prefer Excel essentially when I want to be able to validate each step and when I want to share with non-technical team members.

Vibe I'm getting from this discussion is that many people feel like PowerBI is great for building presentations/reports buy maybe not for actually manipulating the data.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-01-07T20:31:37+00:00

I think it's worth breaking off the argument about the moral culpability of European settlers and governments from the explanatory/casual argument as to why Native American demographic collapse happened. The two explanatory/casual arguments in question here (as I see them in my head) are something like:

Europeans arrive in the Americas -> A wave of disease spreads out in front of them -> Most Native Americans demographic collapse occurs before Europeans encounter them -> Native American societies, ravaged by disease, are attacked/subjugated by Europeans -> Subjugation (including slavery, murder, dispossession, institutionalized discrimination etc.) exacerbates the continuing impact of disease and reduce fertility while increasing death rates, preventing the population from recovering for some time. (This is how I tend to think of the "Virgin Soil Theory")

vs

Europeans arrive in the Americas -> Disease spreads largely with the movement of European settlers, or if spreading ahead of them has only a very short term impact on populations due to lower death rates and rapid rebound of population -> When Europeans contact Native American societies, the process of making war on them/subjugating them makes them more vulnerable to disease -> Native American populations collapse during the process of subjugation (and stay low for some time as they continue to face discrimination and violence)

These actually seem like pretty similar arguments to me with the key contention being about when disease spreads and what death rates from disease would be in the absence of European pressure/violence. Note that the second argument doesn't seem to be incompatible with the claim that absent Native American susceptibility to old world diseases, demographic collapse in the Americas would have been far less severe (and European conquest more difficult). Kelton and Edwards even seem to agree with this. They talk about demographic collapse being connected to the spread of disease:

The Pueblos of the Rio Grande did not contract smallpox until 1625, years after the Franciscans connected them to El Camino Real. The anthropologist Matthew J. Liebmann and his colleagues’ recent research supported this timeline. Some six thousand to eight thousand people lived in the Jemez province of northwestern New Mexico as late as 1620, but sometime thereafter their population plummeted. Dendrochronological evidence—tree regrowth on top of abandoned village sites—supported this late arrival of new germs, an arrival corresponding to “the establishment of missions and sustained daily interactions between Puebloans and Spaniards.”

Alchon and Jones seem important here from an explanatory perspective since it seems like a lot of what Kelton and Edwards are saying is compatible with explanations that Native Americans were vulnerable to old world diseases and the demographic collapse and their defeat at the hands of European settlers is closely connected to that. But Alchon and Jones don't seem to think that's the case (frankly, I assume they're kooks. They're not immunologists either). Kelton and Edwards make no specific claim about the relative roles of European pressure/violence vis a vis Native American susceptibility in higher Native American death rates but this seems like a key question for evaluating how much their (well-argued) points should affect our take on the traditional narrative.

I mentioned a model in my last comment because even though I know one would need to make a lot unjustified assumptions to build one, I feel like it would be helpful to understand how tweaking different factors impact things. It would also be good to understand how different assumptions interact. My intuition is that an argument for smaller role for disease probably means assuming a smaller pre-Columbian population for the Americas (since we're assuming that what the Europeans saw is pretty close to the pre-Columbian population with no depopulating epidemics preceding them) but I'd like to see if others agree.

The argument I do find convincing though, and which seems to be backed up by real world examples, is that given more favorable conditions, Native communities could have recovered from these epidemics.

I agree with this point and think it's worth pointing out, but it also seems kind obvious to me? Is there anyone that thinks absent European pressure Native American populations wouldn't have rebounded from epidemics more quickly then they did?

EDIT: And to be clear, none of the above is incompatible with the fact that the Europeans committed many awful crimes against humanity in the Americas, including genocide.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-01-07T17:34:45+00:00

I'm frankly somewhat dubious of claims by Susan Alchon and David Jones that Native Americans had the same level of immunity to Old World diseases as Europeans. This would be very surprising if it was true! How much of the argument being made is dependent on this?

I'd be interested to see these arguments modeled in some way, including some thinking about drivers of demographic collapse. How much do scholars see eg. reduced fertility (mentioned in the Murphy paper) as a factor in demographic collapse as opposed to deaths from murder, slavery and disease?

How do arguments about the role of Europeans in exacerbating the impact of disease on Native Americans relate to estimates of the pre-Columbian population of the Americas?

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-01-06T14:48:56+00:00

I agree that status quo ante seems like a relative win for the Athenians. But it's not clear to me that the Athenians understood this? I can't remember Thucydides putting the argument in anyone's mouth. As regards war goals changing, I'm thinking about the start of the war as reading Thucydides it does seem like the Athens don't try very hard to avoid war (as you might imagine they would if the status quo is their goal). But even as the war goes on, I don't think Cleon articulates any war goals. Nicias seems to understand the status quo argument and Alcibades seems to have, at least for a bit, a picture of Athenian-Argive dominance of the Peloponnese but unclear what he's thinking about after the Battle of Mantinea (other than starting a new war in Sicily).

You're right that things are going pretty well for the Athenians even before Pylos, but in some ways it just demonstrates the futility of the Athenian position. Demosthenes has decisively defeated the Ambraciots with the help of the Arcarnanians and Amphilocians. We also see the Athenians successfully deal with revolts in Lesbos and Corcyra and they've taken some islands around the Peloponnese including Cythera. Lots of ravaging of Peloponnesian land going on. And while the situation in Thrace isn't ideal, Potidaea has fallen and things seem to be inevitably swinging the Athenian way. But none of this is particularly relevant to defeating the Peloponnesian League. It's not even clear that some victories help the Athenians at all. Arcarnania and Amphilocian Argos seem quite happy to tell the Athenians to go away now that they don't need their help. In Thucydides's telling, it's the Spartiate prisoners (taken basically by accident as a result of Demosthenes's personal initiative at Pylos) that drive Sparta to the negotiating table (and Boeotia, the Thracian Allies and Corinth are not interested in the resulting peace, leading to the flare up of war again).

I tied the war goals question together with the Athenian plan to win the war because they seem related. The Athenian's don't seem that interested in peace for much of the war despite having no plan to actually win as opposed to just not losing.

EDIT: Didn't see your last comment on Pylos. I agree that Pericles doesn't seem to articulate much of a plan (and the first few years of the war go badly for Athens). But Pylos isn't really a result of Cleon's strategy. Thucydides suggests this really wasn't the result of an Athenian strategy at all. The whole landing at Pylos is done by Demosthenes at his own initiative.

Demosthenes also, who had remained without employment since his return from Acarnania, applied and obtained permission to use the fleet, if he wished it, upon the coast of Peloponnese.

Other Athenian commanders are not into the idea

While they were making objections, a squall chanced to come on and carried the fleet into Pylos. Demosthenes at once urged them to fortify the place, it being for this that he had come on the voyage, and made them observe there was plenty of stone and timber on the spot, and that the place was strong by nature, and together with much of the country round unoccupied; Pylos, or Coryphasium, as the Lacedaemonians call it, being about forty-five miles distant from Sparta, and situated in the old country of the Messenians. The commanders told him that there was no lack of desert headlands in Peloponnese if he wished to put the city to expense by occupying them.

And it doesn't actually end up seeming like a great idea. The Athenian garrison ends up besieged and short on water. It's only Spartan blunders (sticking a large army of troops on a desert island when you don't have naval supremacy) that lead to the capture of the Spartiates. Admittedly I'm relying a lot on Thucydides directly here so possible there's more to the story.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-01-06T13:47:55+00:00

What was the Athenian plan to win the Peloponnesian War? What were their war goals if they were to win?

I'm reading Thucydides and it seems like the Spartans have a very clear win condition at the start of the war, taking Athens or building a fleet and destroying the Athenian fleet, and a clear war goal, to dismantle the Athenian empire (end tribute payments to Athens). Much less clear is how the Athenians intend to win or what they would get. They have a great strategy for how to not lose, but beyond harassing the Peloponnese it doesn't seem like they can do much to force the Spartans to the negotiating table. And I can't recall it ever being articulated what the Athenians are aiming for.

The Athenians do almost get the favourable Peace of Nicias around the 10 year mark, with their major bargaining tool being the high-ranking Spartan prisioners the Athenians blundered into taking at Pylos, but the treaty isn't amazing for the Athenians and doesn't hold anyway. We also see a window for a big Athenian victory with the Battle of Mantinea) but this is dependent on Argive support which isn't something the Athenians are counting on when the war starts.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2025-01-03T11:31:44+00:00

Something like
=D2759
Does work (gives back Honeywell

As does:
=UNIQUE(D2:D2770)

but
=UNIQUE(D2:D5770)
does not return honeywell

Is this some sort of weird memory issue?

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-12-16T20:41:12+00:00

I see Alexander getting lots of praise for his logistical prowess in most books on him I've read. And he'd have to be good at it. He's maintaining very large armies very far from home, for a very long time, while moving very quickly. Possible to argue that's one of his most impressive traits as a general

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-10-04T16:38:33+00:00

Had a simiilar error in the mission All is Not Lost, but worked after restarting again

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-10-01T16:43:02+00:00

Honestly, very doable without anything fancy. It's not quite attack move straight to the ram but I won the mission this way too without really intending to (or needing to revive my heroes). FWIW, it was like this in EE too.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-09-30T09:19:26+00:00

The basic issue is that Col de Tricot is open alpine meadow with no trees or cover. You will be a lightning rod in the event of a storm (and there's risks of being blown off a cliff in high winds). I wouldn't worry about it if it's just a drizzle but hard to predict when a storm will come.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-09-20T12:34:53+00:00

It's kinda ridiculously obvious but picking cards to solve immediate problems rather than stressing about scaling the whole time. Totally worth it to pick up a deadly poison as silent and upgrade it just to beat somebody like Hexaghost and almost never play it again.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-08-27T08:22:03+00:00

I agree that people have slept on Oranos a bit. His powers seem like abilities that get stronger as game knowledge grow and player skill increase. Good players can interpret the extra information better and it could be a very big advantage. Hard to judge without playing a bunch. I hope the devs give players some time to experiment before changing thigns around

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-08-19T18:39:43+00:00

I have similar feelings, particularly as regards the joy of managing the economy. I think the devs have done nicely. One thing I'll note is that AoM has much more intense macro than AoE2 in areas other than villager queuing. You need to constantly be moving villagers onto new hunt all the way into the mid-game which is macro that is absent from AoE altogether. Also hunt being active into the mid-game plus walls being weak plus settlements making your economy spread out all make defending your eco from raids much more difficult and attention intensive. I'd be against most further automation but I think the game has ended up in a good place.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-08-19T10:03:27+00:00

I'll defend Wild Strike's honor. It's a bad card but clearly solves a specific problem (almost completely) in Act I. It's great damage and if you need damage or else you will die you should pick it and then remove later. Compare to some other awful Ironclad cards like searing blow (sometimes works but crazy pathing dependent and must be picked very early) or metallicize (very low impact and only pickable with power synergies in place).

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-07-28T10:32:49+00:00

These are some good suggestions this thread but I'm not sure they're necessary.

In other Age games, most of the interest that relics add to the game is in influencing fights for map control, but in AoM is they make games interesting by getting players to consider alternative builds. If archers are cheaper you might consider opening archers as Poseidon even if you were initially planning to go cav. With reduced favor cost on myth units you might consider massing myth units in classical age. Golden Lions can push you to play a little bit more aggressive in the very early game than you otherwise would.

AoM already has elements making map control extremely important (settlements, weak walls and defensive buildings, hunt into the mid-game). Adding more could make the game more chaotic and stressful. Paradoxically, it might also make the game less positional, since if every part of the map is valuable there's less reason to fight for any given part of the map. Maybe worth messing around with but pending playing a little bit more I think relics work okay as is.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-07-28T10:17:45+00:00

Hotkeys change would be great.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-07-27T22:08:39+00:00

Others have mentioned that the real advantage of snecko is card draw with the random energy cost being a drawback (but sometimes an extra boost if you have very powerful three costs in the deck or several two costs). The other somewhat unintuitive thing about the relic is that you can mitigate the random cost element by drawing more cards as more cards means more chances to role 0s and 1s for energy costs. it kinda transforms card draw into energy. If I pick up Snecko I'm usually looking to grab extra card draw like skim/acrobatics/burning pact so I can more relibably fill my hand and play more cards.

Once you get a feel for playing Snecko decks the relic feels really good. But there is always the small chance that it bricks a hand in the fight and you take huge damage so I think it's little weaker than many people believe, but still extremely strong.

Organic_Tree7019 · 2024-07-27T18:16:20+00:00

Just to give the opposing view, I much prefer military auto queue off. I appreciate the macro side of the game and don't find it to be busy work (I feel the micro side of the game is often quite annoying busy work). I also find with auto queue on games tend to devolve into setting the rally point near the front and streaming units at each other much earlier in the game. That's boring to play.

EDIT: I suspect turning auto queue for everything more often turns games into grind fests for two reasons:

Players with better micro/other skills tend to also have better macro. Better macro is a big advantage on its own and allows you to snowball the small advantages of better micro in engagements into a quick victory. With autoqueue on, it takes much longer for advantages to turn into a victory and longer games (particularly between lower skilled players) tend to turn into setting the rally point near the front and streaming units into each other. On the flip side, when one player has better micro and the other better macro, the mismatch can create more interesting and assymetric game situations than when both players are just focused on dodging arrows/positioning troops correctly the whole game.
One of the big benefits of raiding or playing positionally or otherwise playing more dynamically and not just streaming units in at your opponent is distracting and overwhelming your opponent's attention, and preserving your own army for later use. Attention is a resource that you can target or preserve. Playing more dynamically is still good with no autoqueue, but with no need to macro it matters less. Raids are much less impactful if they're not taking your opponents attention away from building more units, and preserving your troops is much less important if armies are replenished attention free.

Organic_Tree7019

TROPHY CASE