@admittedlyhuman yes
-
-
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
@admittedlyhuman this is a question about tradeoff parameters maybe. no increase in means justifies the complete confusion of ends1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
@admittedlyhuman like, i don't want to be twice as effective if it means i'm effecting a completely random goal1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
@admittedlyhuman so maybe that means i shouldn't want to be 1.1 times as effective to effect a 10% random goal1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
@admittedlyhuman although obviously that doesn't straightforwardly follow1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
@VesselOfSpirit I think part of the problem is that as you move away from the goal you become less committed to not moving away from it2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@admittedlyhuman it's like a moving away spiral. but it's a straight line instead2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VesselOfSpirit
@VesselOfSpirit but I'm not sure you can really knock the postrationalists on this b/c they would agree to things like "corruption is bad"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@VesselOfSpirit rationalism proper seems the ideology more prone to optimizing itself right off a cliff1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@VesselOfSpirit unless I've completely misunderstood the meaning of that sentence consisting of a single noun which I am now worried I have1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@admittedlyhuman well it was a vague and very incomplete impression
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.