You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
His diagnosis is that the article was not a deliberate hit job but something closer to a bug — a bad interaction between the NYT's editorial bias and the sloppiness of the individual reporter writing the story.
Basically the reporter knew his job was to make tech look bad, but when he investigated SSC and the "rationalist community" it turned out to be a bunch of harmless nerds, so he had to make shit up.
But although the SSC article is a bug, it's not a random bug. Like many bugs, it teaches us important things about the system it occurred in. And that we'll see more. The combination of editors' bias and reporters' sloppiness is not a rare one.
I deeply disagree with this point entirely because it's built on the assumption that "S.A. is not at that level [of power]. Not even close." "Power resides where men believe it resides". And I think journos honestly believe S.A. is a truly powerful person. 1/3
Just look at how many opinions from people outside of the rationality scene the whole situation generated after the publication. Some many analyses were written you had to clarify you haven't read them all. Many prestige-media-adjacent people had something to say on the matter2/3
The lesswrong community does not represent rationalism, and racist pseudoscience is highly irrational. The great Bertrand Russell was the rationalist philosopher, he was a humanist like all intelligent men. Rationalizing cruelty is better termed as pseudo-intellectualism.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
