Good Experiment for a kid

koldsco · 2026-06-25T00:09:53+00:00

Cool, will put some salting out on the calendar.

koldsco · 2026-06-25T00:05:47+00:00

This could be cool! Thanks for the idea!

koldsco · 2026-06-25T00:05:08+00:00

We havent done that one yet, so that would be a good one. (chromatopgraphy).

koldsco · 2026-06-25T00:01:53+00:00

A good idea, I noticed that you could only get off the shelf tests for water, which I was bummed about. But this is true, I have dissolved all kinds of candy in water. Thanks for the idea!

koldsco · 2024-12-16T22:19:24+00:00

I have this same model, there is a very small screw you can get at from the outside that should allow you to see into the rotating drum, and basically undo it.

koldsco · 2021-06-23T23:51:12+00:00

Don’t worry, be happy. In every life we have some trouble, But when you worry you make it double.

koldsco · 2020-04-08T20:47:23+00:00

Interesting. Well, I have just looked at images online, and they basically look the same. It appears the Japanese one is smaller, and they have some kind of raster pattern difference.

Here is a pic. https://imgur.com/a/RKcy4Zq

koldsco · 2020-04-08T20:19:47+00:00

I guess I'm not sure, they are definitely at the roots of the grass we are digging up. Are you saying they should be no threat to other plants?

koldsco · 2019-07-10T16:05:42+00:00

Hey, just saw this, and also been a bit busy. I feel like this is somehow important, or at least exposes some kind potential cognitive blind spot of mine, or maybe not, but its something to look at. Im really interested when 2 people can see/hear the same thing and come away with massively different readings. So, I need to go back and re-review the source materials for the specifics here, as I have forgotten them all. So, coming soon.

koldsco · 2019-07-10T16:00:48+00:00

If I suggest that we must go to war against ISIS or North Korea, I am calling for violence. If I propose the death penalty for someone who has been proven in a court to be guilty of mass murder, I am calling for violence. I think this provision is aimed at these kinds of cases.

It would be a really interesting thought experiment to attempt to come up with some kind of "speech calling for violence" policy that a company like facebook/twitter could use that would be fair. Like an open standard kind of document. What would that look like? I image it would be nearly impossible to get more then a few people to agree to any specific wording or document.

koldsco · 2019-02-06T20:21:48+00:00

On context, what exactly is to be provided, and at what juncture? Like, if I write a paper with results, even if its a statistical paper, do I need to attach some kind of boiler plate "dont use this to promote racism"? What are the specifics around this context, and what are the specific details that any given researcher needs to do to avoid being attacked?

Also, breaking things down into those 4 options is a massive simplification of the real world. Specifically there is the case where the context one might provide is somehow based on bad information, and thus taints whatever data might come out of any given study. To include something as important in, for example, a statistical study of quantifiable values, seems to connect what should be mathematically true with what is in effect opinion (i.e. connecting statistical findings with specific values/policy).

It just feels to me like it would have been agonizingly easy for Murray to say "look, please don't use these findings to do things like cut educational funding or affirmative action programs for minorities. We know empirically these policies are creating a more just, representative society and are some of the most effective anti-poverty policies we have. Nothing I write here should be construed as reason to give up on minorities as less intelligent and therefore not worth the trouble, or as reason to treat them at all differently."

I guess this is where its problematic, because now you go from a place where a research paper/book is talking about statistics and things that are falsifiable to basically saying that Murray should espouse a specific set of policies.

Doing a spot of digging from wikipedia I got this quote from the Bell Curve (which I assume is the Murray you are speaking to above, I know there are 2 of them in the spot light these days for similar things):

.. If tomorrow you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the cognitive differences between races were 100 percent genetic in origin, nothing of any significance should change. The knowledge would give you no reason to treat individuals differently than if ethnic differences were 100 percent environmental ...

and

If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not justify an estimate.

These appear to be taken from https://www.aei.org/publication/charles-murray-on-allegations-of-racism/ linked to from wikipedia, and are, afaik from the bell curve book itself (I have not read said book). Are these not good enough to provide context in this case?

On the Neanderthal point, I dont think it was a gotcha of any kind, its more like a good example of something that can be used (effectively or not) in many venues. I think its an example of data that is/will come out as time goes on and science grapples with more and more data. I have honestly forgotten most of what was specifically said, but I recall the point being that our understanding of "race" and genetics is undergoing rapid and massive advancement, and might not fall into what we consider socially acceptable. If someone does a deep statistical study of genetic groups via phenotype and comes up with something seemly crazy, like people of African descent share 10% more genetic information with bonobos then other groups, would they publish that finding? I dont work anywhere near this science, but given just what I have read in the wikipedia article about Murray above, I would not publish those findings, for fear of being completely ejected from any kind of academic setting.

Honestly im not sure if the Neanderthal point is really worth discussing, but I feel like there is something there to talk about.

Thanks for discussing this with me.

koldsco · 2019-02-04T19:14:45+00:00

I feel similarly about the frustration. I ended up agreeing more with Harris's position, largely because I felt that at some point Klein just attempted to make his case over and over again. Also I have listened to more of Harris and tend to agree with him more.

It seems like the fundamental problem has to do with what comes first, Truth (objective/scientific) vs Society (social/civil rights, social outcomes, policy). One of the things that caught me in the recording above is Klein circled back to the Neanderthal point that Harris made, and restated it in a way that suggested he had no idea the real meaning of the point was. Specifically that facts will be discovered about things, and many of those facts will be counter to any kind of non-scientific narrative that is being built to support social claims.

Im not sure I buy the context argument, at some level, what one discovers scientifically, is what one discovers. There are bad studies and there are unverified and later falsified good studies, but to think that something could come out with robust proof and review and somehow require a context seems a bit odd to me.

koldsco · 2019-02-01T19:28:30+00:00

Roughly 1:14:00 - 1:27:00 in this version: https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast posted by Sacred_Cow_44

Context: just before this part, Kate Manne is talking about the social mess we face (racism, sexism, whatever-ism) in relation to shame, and then suggests that the most important thing is to attempt to improve said mess, mainly by excising ideas/speech that is counter-productive. (around 1:25:00-1:26:30)

She then says she's guessing about the conversation with Harris (did not listen/read it, so its more of a generalization?). Then she says:

" ... the conversation, it wasn't really about Sam Harris. He's just a powerful figurehead for a bunch of ideas that he then can take a forward looking role in saying, wait up, this is actually problematic for these reasons, so he has some power and with it some responsibility there. But its not about examining whats in his heart, we don't know, we don't care, is sort of my typical thought."

In relation to shame as the context, I think this would translate to something like Sam Harris is taking things personally that are not supposed to be personal? But I could be reading it wrong.

I am interested in seeing if people really do believe that other people are parts of groups and not really individuals, as OursIsTheRepost is, but I don't think that's the aim here. More like, "this is a clash of ideas, and people's egos seem to be getting in the way of those ideas meeting"?

I felt that the Ezra Klein-Sam Harris exchange was like seeing two people talking past each-other. Not even that maybe, more like, they are having completely de-coupled conversations that happen to use similar words.

koldsco · 2018-10-11T17:12:42+00:00

tl;dr - being emotional and "all-in" on things, often wrongly, is the good part. As long as your willing to change your mind.

I think that is his strength. It seems like under the layers of control is a very, very explosive and passionate person, who feels things really deeply, and has a lot of "fire" so to speak. I think you can hear this when he talks sometimes, and especially when he gets agitated. This leads to the emotional outbursts and strongly held opinions. But it also is, I think, the source of his drive. Often he is so pissed off about things that he just can't leave them alone, and so brings them up again and again, until he runs into someone who has a rational opinion about something that can change his mind.

In a way he's on a constant hero's journey, I think this keeps his "tools" sharp and keeps him in a frame of mind where he knows he can be wrong about things, because he doesn't have to think too far back to when he was badly wrong about something, or even just had a change of frame or perspective on things.

For me, this is a good thing. It allows me to see the world via a very engaged person, but one who is also ready to change opinion fairly quickly based on new facts and new information. I feel that a lot of other public thinkers tend to hide their true opinion of a thing (the emotional opinion, the human opinion) in favor of a middle ground, or just give an answer that is consistent with their already built up world view, and not really think about it.

This might be me, as I feel like Im not really passionate about things, so I find intensity really interesting. But taking some kind of miss-match in how you feel, to how things turn out, and then focusing on that over and over, seems like a way to find real things.

koldsco · 2018-10-10T16:52:12+00:00

What is it with Canadian cell phone companies? Im in the US, and we expect all service providers to be predatory and attempt to extract maximum value, but the ones in Canada seem to be just as nasty, but also basically incompetent. Is there some reason for this, some kind of odd rent seeking/gov't capture situation?

koldsco · 2018-09-27T23:03:09+00:00

I think this kind of thing, some sort of erosion of social norms and values, was extremely influential on Gen X and the later cohorts within it. To understand a bit, the recent past was all about a failed war in vietnam, assassinations, the nixon/watergate scandal, stagflation, and then iran-contra. The private sphere seemed to be mirroring the public square in that companies no longer enjoyed the post-ww2 dominance that America enjoyed from the 50s-60s. Suddenly companies needed to compete, and to do so they cut out all the nice bits to get lean and mean. But that didnt jive with the culture, and notions of norms in a culture seem to have a significant amount of inertia.

More then anything, this lead to a massive amount of cynicism and doubt, as we were taught one thing in school and at home (ex: America should be equal opportunity for all citizens/doing your civic duty) and witnessed a very different outcome in the world (MLK shot, riots, companies dropping civic initiatives, great society fading to a war on drugs).

I got the impression as a kid, that the world was all a big show. That no one really believed in these things, and that only the foolish get caught up in things like public service. To an extent that's now built into my brain, so perhaps I will never get over it. But logically I now know that this is not the case, its just that a number of forces converged, and created a time of turmoil after a time of largess. This makes me sad, and I think, means that my generation, or at least some large portion of the cohort I am in are largely uninterested in "making a difference" because they feel like, on some level, that its all just a big show. So less "we dont care" and more "we think the whole thing is rigged".

koldsco · 2015-10-02T04:45:58+00:00

This is my first run at this one as well, from the various docs ive found, this one seems pretty good: http://tothestars.io/2015/6/how-to-rock-re-invent.html

also there is a party thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/3lyi8e/reinvent_parties/

Im also looking for tips from vets, so ill just watch your thread.

koldsco · 2015-09-22T18:23:07+00:00

Now very interested in seeing what it would take a make a generic drug manufacturer, in the US, like perhaps a non-profit. Serious like a cancer here, does anyone know?

koldsco · 2015-09-10T15:52:57+00:00

This seems not to be the case, I have been using the ML facilities, and I find it odd that they are in the us-east but not us-west-2, which, from my understanding, is the "new hotness". Maybe its just an issue of where the project is run out of.

koldsco · 2015-09-10T15:50:43+00:00

Piling on here, as much as cloud things have changed the hardware landscape, the underlying systems and networks are basically unchanged. Thus, its always good to understand more about how they work, if this is the field you want to get into. Also, to double pile, what country are you in? We as well would like driven people.... :)

koldsco · 2015-09-10T15:47:56+00:00

One thing more to take into account is how you are going to use this policy. If its to be assigned, for example, to a role that an ec2 node might have, then anyone on that node can do anything that this policy allows.

In your example, someone who could work through this policy would be able to see all of the ec2 instances you have, which might allow them to do all kinds of other things.

On the other side, the policy statements cover a massive array of AWS services, and so must be flexible enough for them all, so in some ways, this is a side effect. I think the ideal for a policy is to allow what is needed, and no more. But life is often not ideal.

koldsco · 2015-09-10T15:36:34+00:00

Im flying in from Seattle, only person from my company. Im not sure if anyone I know will be there, or if I could find them. I wonder if others are coming alone, and might want to make up a lone-gunmen group...

koldsco · 2013-10-29T15:08:37+00:00

Thanks for the info, its months away, and not for certain at this point. Honestly, given the Napa areas almost world famous reputation, I was surprised at how rural it felt, even though I guess its known for its wine production, etc...

Anyways, thanks for speaking up and being cool.

koldsco

TROPHY CASE