All of Anthony Repetto's Comments + Replies

Thank you for diving into the details! And, to be clear, I am not taking issue with any of Gibbard's proof itself - if you found an error in his arguments, that's your own victory, please claim it! Instead, what I point to is Gibbard's method of DATA-COLLECTION.

Gibbard pre-supposes that the ONLY data to be collected from voters is a SINGULAR election's List of Preferences. And, I agree with Gibbard in his conclusion, regarding such a data-set: "IF you ONLY collect a single election's ranked preferences, then YES, there is no way to avoid strategic voting, ... (read more)

You're welcome to side with convenience; I am not commanding you to perform Dirichlet. Yet! If you take that informality, you give-up accuracy. You become MoreWrong, and should not be believed as readily as you would like.

"From this informal perspective, clarity and conciseness matters far more than empirical robustness."

Then you are admitting my critique: "Your community uses excuses, to allow themselves a claim of epistemic superiority, when they are actually using a technique which is inadequate and erroneous." Yup. Thanks for showing me and the public your community's justification for using wrong techniques while claiming you're right. Screenshot done!

Oh, you entirely missed my purpose: I was sharing this with your community, as a courtesy. I publish on different newsletters online, and I wrote for that audience ABOUT your community. And, the fact that you're not interested in learning about Dirichlet, when it's industry-standard (demonstrating its superiority empirically, not with anecdotes you find palatable). So, no, I don't plan to present myself in a way you approve of, as a pre-requisite to you noticing that Bayes is out-dated by 260 years of improvements. Dirichlet, logically, would NOT have been... (read more)

Alistair, I regret to inform you that after four years of Leverage's Anti-Avoidance Training, the cancer has spread: the EA Community at large is now repeatedly aghast that outsiders are noticing their subtle rug-sweeping of sexual harassment and dismissal of outside critique. In barely a decade, the self-described rats are swum 'round a stinking sh!p. I'm still amazed that, for the last year, as I kept bringing-forth concerns and issues, the EA members each insisted 'no problems here, no, never, we're always so perfect....' Yep. It shows.

This aged well... and it reads like what ChatGPT would blurt, if you asked it to "sound like a convincingly respectful and calm cult with no real output." Your 'Anti-Avoidance,' in particular, is deliciously Orwellian. "You're just avoiding the truth, you're just confused..."

I was advocating algal and fish farming, including bubbling air into the water and sopping-up the fish poop with crabs and bivalves - back in 2003. Spent a few years trying to tell any marine biologist I could. Fish farming took-off, years later, and recently they realized you should b... (read more)

Third Generation Bay Area, here - and, if you aren't going to college at Berkeley or swirling in the small cliques of SF among 800,000 people living there, yeah, not a lot of polycules. I remember when Occupy oozed its way through here that left a residue of 'say-anything-polyamorists' who were excited to share their 'pick-up artist' techniques when only other men where present. "Gurus abuse naïve hopefuls for sex" has been a recurring theme of the Bay, every few decades, but the locals don't buy it.

I am terrified that you were downvoted to obscurity. These posts, the ones that EA hides, are the ones the public needs to see the most.

I am terrified that you were so thoroughly downvoted... "EA only wants to hear shallow critiques, not deep ones" seems to be happening vigorously, still.

It's a bad sign that you were being downvoted! I gave you my upvote!

Another wonderful example of "so simple, why didn't anyone try it before" just this week:

Robert Murray-Smith's wind generators seem to have a Levelized Cost comparable to the big turbines, yet simple and cheap, redundant: 

Thank you! I remember hearing about Bayesian updates, but rationalizations can wipe those away quickly. From the perspective of Popper, EAs should try "taking the hypothesis that EA..." and then try proving themselves wrong, instead of using a handful of data-points to reach their preferred, statistically irrelevant conclusion, all-the-while feeling confident.

continuing my response:

When Gregory Lewis said to you that "If the objective is to persuade this community to pay attention to your work, then even if in some platonic sense their bar is 'too high' is neither here nor there: you still have to meet it else they will keep ignoring you." He is arguing an ultimatum: "if we're dysfunctional, then you still have to bow to our dysfunction, or we get to ignore you." That has no standing in epistemics, and it is a bad-faith argument. If he were to suppose his organization's dysfunction with the probability with whi... (read more)

Thank you for speaking up, even as they again cast doubt: where Gregory Lewis supposed that the way to find truth was that "We could litigate which is more likely - or, better, find what the ideal 'bar' insiders should have on when to look into outsider/heterodox/whatever work, and see whether what has been presented so far gets far enough along the ?crackpot/?genius spectrum to warrant the consultation" He entirely ignores the proper 'bar' for new ideas: consideration of the details, and refutation of those details. If refutation cannot be done by them, t... (read more)

Whoo. Last cross-post for the night, I think I've responded to the major points... and I hope this shows a bit more of the complexity underneath my simplistic presentation!

How quickly it rains down depends on a few factors, and we can tip those in our favor:

--> Humid Rise - humidity (just the h2o molecule) is only 18g/mol, while oxygen molecules are 32g/mol, so humid air is quite buoyant! Especially considering that water vapor reflects heat (infrared) back to the ground, creating a heat bulge beneath it. The result is that, once humidity begins to rise... (read more)

Another cross-post from Lesswrong about a detailed example, the entire Sahara:

Thank you for diving into the details with me, and continuing to ask probing questions!

The water brought-in by the Sahara doesn't depend upon the area of the source; it's the humidity times the m3 per second arriving. Humidity is low on arrival, reaching only 50% right now in Tunisia, their winter drizzles! The wind speed is roughly 2m/sec coming in from the sea, which is only 172,800m/day of drift. Yet! That sea-breeze is a wall of air a half kilometer high - that is why it can ... (read more)

These details might help see the complexities

[[a cross-post of my comment from the Lesswrong cross-post of the original post, in that thread of comments!]]

Let's start at a more practical scale: make the Negev Bloom.

The Negev is 12,000 km2, which, if we want grasslands, needs some 300mm extra rain or more each year. That's 3.6 billion tons per year, or just 10Mt a day. With 20g/m3 humidity, we'll need passage of 500 billion m3 of air-flow each day. With convection driven by solar concentrators (those same which drive the pumps) to increase wind velocity dur... (read more)

We have repeated evidence of good designs being ignored for a decade or more; hence the Silicon Valley axiom: "10 years ahead of time is as good as wrong." Similarly, good designs can be appallingly simple, and go unnoticed - for example, Torggler's swinging-door design (watch on YouTube; there is no way to explain it properly, because it is so bizarrely simple).

Another example is the original river-clean-up buoy-net system, debuted decades ago, and promptly ignored, despite grabbing all the plastic before it entered the ocean. We continued to hope for 'so... (read more)

Here are the less contentious parts, I hope?

"Ben Delo's involvement with EA just quietly stopped being talked about without any kind of public reflection on what could be done better moving forwards."

"Failing to share information because you suspect it will make me less supportive or more critical of your views, decisions, or actions smells of overconfidence and makes you difficult to trust, and this has regularly happened to me in my engagement with EA."

Yes, exactly. Thank you! EA Berkeley had to remove their leader just two years ago, for reasons that no... (read more)

Oh, no - not 'because-dating-already', nor as a favor, nor her aspiring to use beauty, or being unqualified. Rather, if people doing the hiring are selecting among excellent candidates, yet their selection favors people who those same authorities hope to try dating. It's the hirer, not the one hired, who I call into question; as I said originally "hoping to hire-in" which places agency and blame with those being biased in their hiring.

Also, I don't expect a flat 'gender disparity' to be indicative of this sort of hiring - rather, internal measure of co-wor... (read more)

Thank you! You are welcome to check - the dismissals had begun, in multiple threads, before a peep from me; they were the initial replies. I became hot in response, only then, which your forum abhors - and I understand that I am downvoted for it! I don't expect you to give me a soap-box in your living room, when I keep offending you.

I can also drop my guise, which I understand if you find doubly offensive: a troll-trap.

After being misrepresented repeatedly, this time I intentionally included the word 'nerd', to see if that would be enough to ignore the oth... (read more)

"I can also see it being possible that you bumped into situations where people were trying to sort out interpersonal issues privately, and you got wind of it and tried to make it public."

Thank you for responding! And, no, that is not accurate. The leader of EA Berkeley was ousted; that's not an 'interpersonal issue, privately'. That's the organization wanting to protect a brand by leaving their problems unmentioned, which is exactly the dishonesty part. I believe I've rebutted your argument - unless you have more to add?

Additionally, I understand if you to... (read more)

In other threads, my arguments were repeatedly misrepresented or unaddressed, while comments consisted of 'we shouldn't fund this, it's not appropriate' when I specified at the outset that I was not seeking funding; 'this should be posted somewhere else', etc. And only in a few instances, out of dozens of responses, have EA commenters addressed the substance of what I wrote.

Behaving decently is nice; that doesn't remove the point I was asking about: ignoring the other arguments I brought-up. It seems, repeatedly, that the call of appropriateness is used to ignore the substance of the other arguments; which continues to be the case, in this thread.

Does that absolve EA of the other points? Finding a flaw with the speaker or one of their points, to ignore the rest of the argument, seems to be a pattern amongst forum-commenters  here - followed by mass downvotes.

I'd also like to ask clarification about your last sentence: I said 'nerds', and that may be what you found particularly offensive, there; or, that I hypothesize that men in those organizations are hiring hoping for a date? I am not attempting to 'blame a woman' for getting a job, by the way - I am pointing to the people who are doing the hiring for potentially selfish reasons.

Well, there's a simple empirical measure, rather than relying on whether an argument is approved-of or not: Do any of them date? Are they hoping to keep that fact hidden?

Moderation of the boards, to point-out misrepresentations and fallacies, would put it on par with the philosophy message board I moderated in the 90s. New folks shouldn't have to defend themselves from EA regulars' misrepresentations.

And, the selection of judges seems an arcane cabal... did you notice the irony, that your own, privately selected judges are the ones who determine if critique of themselves is valid? That's equivalent to being "judge in your own trial".

I also fear that, by offering a prize to the 'best', you are then able to disregard all tho... (read more)

Thank you for your detailed critique! I'm glad to hear firm arguments - we are two halves of progress, Speculator and Skeptic. Isn't the Constitution the means by which the Government inherits the Will of the People? Such that, though the oath is directly to the Constitution, it is ultimately to the People? The founders didn't want a direct link, due to the whims of the majority and the moment... yet, we are not slaves to our own Constitution, instead its recipient?

Hmm... I suppose we're looking at the "preferred agent" as different members: I think of the People as the privileged agents, with statesmen taking an oath to those People, which seems to be a breach of their oath of office if they intentionally misrepresent their goals in office. You favor the statesmen, even when the evidence of history is that voters are repeatedly fooled because there is no reliable account of politicians' actions?

[Also, the existence of Representative government, by the way, is the admission that each voter not be burdened with every task of verification, and this seems to be another instance of that.]

When someone offers "what if we measure, to verify their claim?" - that is what destroys democracy, by limiting the speech of active politicians. Is that correct? Because it seems that "allowing politicians to lie on campaign to voters, thereby deceiving them in their vote and making that vote a lie" seems worse than limiting candidates' extravagant claims , only.

Thank you!

 1. Keeping promises is hard, being truthful seems to be hard to them... I'm not sure why their relative difficulty makes any difference? Could you outline the steps in that argument a bit more?

 2.  If the amendment operates by criteria, rather than dictate, it's aligned with what I originally described. For example, "Make Everything Fantastic" would only be rated true if nothing declined. There are objective metrics for these things, and in those cases of ambiguity, you side on "broken promise" for safety. I don't pretend to have ... (read more)

"may politicize the courts" turned into "that would be really bad". Did you have additional critique? I have a hunch that, if I'd stood in the Second Continental Convention and said, "What if the check-and-balance the courts could wield over the Legislature and Executive included making them admit their broken campaign promises?" Ben might wink! "A Democracy, if you can keep it..." meant you'd have to take active steps to preserve the spirit, as laws become loopholes and citizens become consumers.

So, it's been a pattern among the hundreds of academics and ... (read more)

Apologies for forming a separate thread - I was just informed that the author posted here, as well.

Here is the link, if you are curious: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xEyzE2DGSiMQGjqmz/a-response-to-openphil-s-r-and-d-model

Thank you!

Thank you for recognizing that my concern was not addressed. I should mention, I am also not operating from an assumption of 'intrinsically against me' - it's an unusually specific reaction that I've received on this forum, in particular. So, I'm glad that you have spoken-up in favor of due consideration. My stomach knots thank you :)

Yes, I understand that funding can let me hire people to do that work - and I don't need funding to free my time. I understand that, if I delay for the sake of doing-it-alone, then I am responsible for that additional harm. It doesn't make sense for me to run a simulation or lobby by myself; and I've been in the position of hiring people, as well as working with people who are internally motivated. I hoped to find the internally motivated people, first - that's why I asked EA for connections, instead of just posting something on a job site.

When did you edit your response? You were saying something else, originally...

Yes, I can imagine the world where I respond to the misrepresentations with politeness - I did that for twenty years, and the misrepresentations continued, along with so many other forms of bullying. I have seen the world from that lens, and I learned that it's better for me to stand-up to misrepresentations, even if that means the bully doesn't like me.

I apologize for lumping your funding-suggestion along-side others' funding-misrepresentation. I see that you are looking for ways to make it possible, and funding is what came to mind. Thank you.

(I am still surprised that funding is continually the first topic, after I specify that the government is the best institution to finance such a project. EA would go bankrupt, if they tried to stop hurricanes...)

And, I understand if people don't consider my proposal promising - I am not demanding that they divert resources, especially funds which are best spent on ... (read more)

I agree! So, consider the scenario: I stand-up and ask "does anyone know someone I might talk to?" and the response I get is "but we don't want to give you money". I correct that misrepresentation, repeatedly, until I suspect that I am being trolled - and my self-defense is used as a reason to ignore me. If I hadn't been poked-in-the-eye repeatedly, those introductions would begin on a pleasant footing.

Core to this problem: each of you are focusing on how I can "get better results by playing nice". I am focusing on "I was misrepresented, and that should be considered first, in the moral calculus." If I roll-over every time someone bullies me, then I'll be liked by a whole lot of bullies. That doesn't sound like a win, to me.

Thank you for letting me know.

I should also add this note: there is a double-standard in communication, here. I was asked repeatedly to 'calm down and speak nicely, because only then will we listen' - meanwhile, the ones who misrepresented were given a pass to lead the listener by the nose along imputations such as "because you posted a lot, no one is going to listen to you." They got that pass, easily, with the header "being brutally honest"/"honestly". Should I just begin all my posts with "just being brutally honest", so that no one uses my tone as a reason to ignore the content of what I say?

[Jeff deleted his response, yet it was still helpful!]

I was responding to Jeff - and thank you, Jeff, for clarifying that downvotes can hide me.

In my response to him, I was expressing my concern that a subset of the Forum has the power to hide my self-defense, so that my correction of their misrepresentation goes unnoticed, while their misrepresentations stand in full view.

Another EA Forum post, just recently ("Bad Omens in Current Community Building") was trying to bring to the community's attention that, among other things, EA is sometimes perceived as cultish or cliquish. I hope you can all see that, when my correction of others' misrepresentations are downvoted to obscurity, then that concern of cliquishness is real.

Thank you for the clarification. It's still worrisome that a subset, by downvoting, can ensure that my correction of their misrepresentation goes un-noticed, while their misrepresentation of me stands in full view. There was another post on the Forum, recently, talking about how outsiders worry that EA is a cult or a clique - I hope you can see where that concern is coming from, when my self-defense is downvoted to obscurity, while the misrepresentations stand.