I'm against most adjectives and also against most uses of "nonviolent communication", so let me offer a more fundamental reason to reduce your use of adjectives: It's just clearer writing/speaking to omit them. And the attempt to write more clearly probably forces you to think more clearly. Precisely-chosen adjectives are fine, but "bad" conveys more noise than signal. The fact that it may hurt someone's feelings is beside the point. You could just as easily offer a commentary on "AI 2027's excellent timeline models" and "excellent" would be similarly uninformative. OTOH, a bare description of the facts will hurt an emotionally intelligent person's feelings just as much as you calling it "bad", because they get the point. Depending on context, it might even hurt more, because they know it's a rationally-considered take and not an emotional one that you are likely to feel differently about once you calm down.
The focus should be on speaking/writing in a way that will most clearly convey meaning. "The kitchen is dirty" obfuscates; "the dishes need to be washed" makes clear what you want (and conveys just as much "judgment" to all but the most obtuse). "Your presentation was too dry", OTOH, is better than "I didn't like it". But better still would be "I would like more examples of what these budget numbers mean for our day to day operations" or "expert consensus is that people will pay more attention if you sound excited when you give a presentation".
I want to note that the political staffer talent gap previously observed in posts such as "Go Republican, Young EA" has swung in the opposite direction now.
America PAC ran a get out the vote campaign that Dems are still struggling to understand and most staffers in the party still don't grasp that it did this because "hurr hurr Elon dumb bad man". To the smartest among us it was obvious at the time that he was running circles around the Harris campaign, but the Harris campaign's leadership seemed to sincerely believe they had the stronger field campaign because they couldn't see outside the limited set of metrics they were using.
The tech--->right wing politics pipeline has ensured that the GOP will have it's share of the most talented and ambitious young staffers. Meanwhile the Dems seem to be actively seeking out staff who don't want to work too hard, reducing the hours campaign staffers are expected to work and in some cases even the hours Congressional staffers are required to work, to levels where it's not really possible to do such a difficult job competently. More broadly, a lot of management practices have become focused on the comfort of the staff rather than the accomplishment of the mission. This obviously discourages people who want to do a good job from even applying.
Given the Dems' ideologically-driven preference for lower-quality staff and dysfunctional operating conditions, I think it's somewhat tricky to arbitrage this, but you could either run in a primary against a Dem candidate who has adopted bad hiring practices, or go to work for a candidate who has rejected such practices, and your odds of winning would be higher than most outside observers would expect. James Carville expressed a frustration that many of us in the Democratic party have with the quality of young staffers in this video: https://www.facebook.com/reel/918431933580060. I think more candidates and elected officials over the next few years will start to select more for staff who are achievement-oriented rather than lifestyle-oriented, but this change will be pretty unevenly adopted.
I'm an anti-Bay Area EA because from the stuff I've read about sexual harassment in EA it's like 90% Bay Area EAs doing it, and seems to be enabled by specific subcultural factors there that I don't see anywhere else in the movement.
If you're not a CA resident, I would probably discourage writing a letter. Exceptions if you have special expertise or are a donor to Newsom. But in general letters from non-constituents are not persuasive to politicians and often are used against the desired policy, to show their constituents how much pressure from outsiders they're "standing up against".
How much should 80k's US policy career advice change in light of the Supreme Court striking down Chevron deference? My quick take: In principle this is more power for the judiciary, but they still lack the power to initiate policy changes. So my quick take is it probably means someone who was undecided or weakly in favor of executive branch should try to get a job in Congress now. Should be a premium on experts who can write detailed legislation well now that that responsibility can't be delegated to the agencies. Interested in hearing others' thoughts.
If RAF cadets work like USAF cadets it means they went to college at some kind of military academy and were essentially full time plus in military training alongside school.
Strong downvote on the OP because the counting is done in a HIGHLY misleading way. If I were the moderators I would take the post down or demand SUBSTANTIAL corrections.
For Claim 1. (25% of signatories have been accused of financial misconduct, and 10% convicted[1]), the info provided in the footnote renders this claim outright false. Beyond the fact that many civil violations of the law are not even crimes, civil judgments are not convictions, require a substantially lower standard of proof, and from a legal strategy standpoint, there is often no reason not to settle a case that requires no admission of wrongdoing and where the legal consequences of a criminal conviction are not triggered and it's just not worth the opportunity cost of spending time and money litigating it.
Using the experience of non-US billionaires is also extremely misleading without evidence about base rates of crime in those countries. My guess would be that India, for example, has historically had such high rates of corruption that virtually every Indian over ~50, and certainly those in business, have done things that would result in jail time if done in the US. But that's not morally blameworthy; it's just the system they have to operate in.
Beyond that issue, some more mundane ones:
No evidence is presented for the idea that white collar criminals are less likely to be punished than other criminals. It is probably the case that rich people are less likely to be punished for the same crime than poor people. But the nature of financial crime in publicly traded companies is that the evidence is just way more accessible to the government than the evidence of stealing toothpaste from Target. So financial crimes in publicly traded companies are likely prosecuted at much higher rates than other types of crimes.
Overall the rates listed appear to generally be lower than the general population, which is extremely impressive considering that most billionaires are men, who tend to have much higher rates of criminality. So I would expect billionaires to have almost double the population base rate of criminality just by virtue of that! I don't know why Y-combinator funding is a remotely appropriate reference class.
Let's review the individual claims now:
25% of signatories have been accused of financial misconduct, and 10% convicted[1]
4% of signatories have spent at least one day in prison
Overall, 41% of signatories have had at least one allegation of substantial misconduct (financial, sexual, or otherwise
Claim 1. is blatantly false, as noted at the outset. Beyond that, we have only an explanation, hidden in the footnote, of what constitutes a "conviction". No definition of the meaning of allegation. Based on the stated methodology I assume at least a criminal charge or the filing of a lawsuit to count. No indication on whether e.g. a public allegation with no suit counts, and no indication that a lawsuit needs to be credible to count.
Were it to be true, this would be lower than the overall % of Americans with criminal charges, which is about 1/3 of adults. This doesn't include those who've been defendants in a civil lawsuit, which I can't find good statistics for. I can't find overall statistics for criminal convictions but 8% of American adults have felony convictions. Based on my experience as a lawyer, it's surprising what kinds of minor bs count as a felony but I'd still be surprised if misdemeanor convictions don't outnumber felonies (with substantial overlap), so I'd guess at least 16% have some kind of conviction. Miscount civil judgments as "convictions" and tons more people get thrown in.
Claim 2.--the population base rate is about 5% over a lifetime.
Claim 3. In addition to the problems noted with 1., it's unclear what constitutes "substantial misconduct". Crimes at least have a clear definition. Civil violations of the law have a clear-ish definition.
They got outplayed in the context of the internal politics of OpenAI, where there were A LOT of people with profit (Microsoft) or career (the employees) incentives to race ahead. But there seems to be an emerging public consensus in favor of more regulation, so I would expect that e.g. smart, ambitious politicians have quite different incentives.
In the event of a successful lawsuit, we should consider NL fully vindicated and not engage in this sort of reputational retribution for daring to defend their rights. Actions that successfully punish wrongdoers are generally not negative sum because they discourage future misconduct. This is true even where it's negligent and not malicious; knowing one may face consequences encourages greater care in the future.
Edit: I can see reasons it might be unfair to pursue a defamation suit against an unsophisticated/under-resourced party where it's a really close call legally. But we are talking about legally sophisticated parties who effectively spent $ 6 figures' worth of their time on this; the legal fees are chump change compared to what they've already put in.
I'm against most adjectives and also against most uses of "nonviolent communication", so let me offer a more fundamental reason to reduce your use of adjectives: It's just clearer writing/speaking to omit them. And the attempt to write more clearly probably forces you to think more clearly. Precisely-chosen adjectives are fine, but "bad" conveys more noise than signal. The fact that it may hurt someone's feelings is beside the point. You could just as easily offer a commentary on "AI 2027's excellent timeline models" and "excellent" would be similarly uninformative. OTOH, a bare description of the facts will hurt an emotionally intelligent person's feelings just as much as you calling it "bad", because they get the point. Depending on context, it might even hurt more, because they know it's a rationally-considered take and not an emotional one that you are likely to feel differently about once you calm down.
The focus should be on speaking/writing in a way that will most clearly convey meaning. "The kitchen is dirty" obfuscates; "the dishes need to be washed" makes clear what you want (and conveys just as much "judgment" to all but the most obtuse). "Your presentation was too dry", OTOH, is better than "I didn't like it". But better still would be "I would like more examples of what these budget numbers mean for our day to day operations" or "expert consensus is that people will pay more attention if you sound excited when you give a presentation".
I want to note that the political staffer talent gap previously observed in posts such as "Go Republican, Young EA" has swung in the opposite direction now.
America PAC ran a get out the vote campaign that Dems are still struggling to understand and most staffers in the party still don't grasp that it did this because "hurr hurr Elon dumb bad man". To the smartest among us it was obvious at the time that he was running circles around the Harris campaign, but the Harris campaign's leadership seemed to sincerely believe they had the stronger field campaign because they couldn't see outside the limited set of metrics they were using.
The tech--->right wing politics pipeline has ensured that the GOP will have it's share of the most talented and ambitious young staffers. Meanwhile the Dems seem to be actively seeking out staff who don't want to work too hard, reducing the hours campaign staffers are expected to work and in some cases even the hours Congressional staffers are required to work, to levels where it's not really possible to do such a difficult job competently. More broadly, a lot of management practices have become focused on the comfort of the staff rather than the accomplishment of the mission. This obviously discourages people who want to do a good job from even applying.
Given the Dems' ideologically-driven preference for lower-quality staff and dysfunctional operating conditions, I think it's somewhat tricky to arbitrage this, but you could either run in a primary against a Dem candidate who has adopted bad hiring practices, or go to work for a candidate who has rejected such practices, and your odds of winning would be higher than most outside observers would expect. James Carville expressed a frustration that many of us in the Democratic party have with the quality of young staffers in this video: https://www.facebook.com/reel/918431933580060. I think more candidates and elected officials over the next few years will start to select more for staff who are achievement-oriented rather than lifestyle-oriented, but this change will be pretty unevenly adopted.
I'm an anti-Bay Area EA because from the stuff I've read about sexual harassment in EA it's like 90% Bay Area EAs doing it, and seems to be enabled by specific subcultural factors there that I don't see anywhere else in the movement.
If you're not a CA resident, I would probably discourage writing a letter. Exceptions if you have special expertise or are a donor to Newsom. But in general letters from non-constituents are not persuasive to politicians and often are used against the desired policy, to show their constituents how much pressure from outsiders they're "standing up against".
How much should 80k's US policy career advice change in light of the Supreme Court striking down Chevron deference? My quick take: In principle this is more power for the judiciary, but they still lack the power to initiate policy changes. So my quick take is it probably means someone who was undecided or weakly in favor of executive branch should try to get a job in Congress now. Should be a premium on experts who can write detailed legislation well now that that responsibility can't be delegated to the agencies. Interested in hearing others' thoughts.
If RAF cadets work like USAF cadets it means they went to college at some kind of military academy and were essentially full time plus in military training alongside school.
Strong downvote on the OP because the counting is done in a HIGHLY misleading way. If I were the moderators I would take the post down or demand SUBSTANTIAL corrections.
For Claim 1. (25% of signatories have been accused of financial misconduct, and 10% convicted[1]), the info provided in the footnote renders this claim outright false. Beyond the fact that many civil violations of the law are not even crimes, civil judgments are not convictions, require a substantially lower standard of proof, and from a legal strategy standpoint, there is often no reason not to settle a case that requires no admission of wrongdoing and where the legal consequences of a criminal conviction are not triggered and it's just not worth the opportunity cost of spending time and money litigating it.
Using the experience of non-US billionaires is also extremely misleading without evidence about base rates of crime in those countries. My guess would be that India, for example, has historically had such high rates of corruption that virtually every Indian over ~50, and certainly those in business, have done things that would result in jail time if done in the US. But that's not morally blameworthy; it's just the system they have to operate in.
Beyond that issue, some more mundane ones:
No evidence is presented for the idea that white collar criminals are less likely to be punished than other criminals. It is probably the case that rich people are less likely to be punished for the same crime than poor people. But the nature of financial crime in publicly traded companies is that the evidence is just way more accessible to the government than the evidence of stealing toothpaste from Target. So financial crimes in publicly traded companies are likely prosecuted at much higher rates than other types of crimes.
Overall the rates listed appear to generally be lower than the general population, which is extremely impressive considering that most billionaires are men, who tend to have much higher rates of criminality. So I would expect billionaires to have almost double the population base rate of criminality just by virtue of that! I don't know why Y-combinator funding is a remotely appropriate reference class.
Let's review the individual claims now:
Claim 1. is blatantly false, as noted at the outset. Beyond that, we have only an explanation, hidden in the footnote, of what constitutes a "conviction". No definition of the meaning of allegation. Based on the stated methodology I assume at least a criminal charge or the filing of a lawsuit to count. No indication on whether e.g. a public allegation with no suit counts, and no indication that a lawsuit needs to be credible to count.
Were it to be true, this would be lower than the overall % of Americans with criminal charges, which is about 1/3 of adults. This doesn't include those who've been defendants in a civil lawsuit, which I can't find good statistics for. I can't find overall statistics for criminal convictions but 8% of American adults have felony convictions. Based on my experience as a lawyer, it's surprising what kinds of minor bs count as a felony but I'd still be surprised if misdemeanor convictions don't outnumber felonies (with substantial overlap), so I'd guess at least 16% have some kind of conviction. Miscount civil judgments as "convictions" and tons more people get thrown in.
Claim 2.--the population base rate is about 5% over a lifetime.
Claim 3. In addition to the problems noted with 1., it's unclear what constitutes "substantial misconduct". Crimes at least have a clear definition. Civil violations of the law have a clear-ish definition.
Would objective licensing standards help? Training itself can be BS'd but maybe a test run by the state is harder to rig.
They got outplayed in the context of the internal politics of OpenAI, where there were A LOT of people with profit (Microsoft) or career (the employees) incentives to race ahead. But there seems to be an emerging public consensus in favor of more regulation, so I would expect that e.g. smart, ambitious politicians have quite different incentives.
In the event of a successful lawsuit, we should consider NL fully vindicated and not engage in this sort of reputational retribution for daring to defend their rights. Actions that successfully punish wrongdoers are generally not negative sum because they discourage future misconduct. This is true even where it's negligent and not malicious; knowing one may face consequences encourages greater care in the future.
Edit: I can see reasons it might be unfair to pursue a defamation suit against an unsophisticated/under-resourced party where it's a really close call legally. But we are talking about legally sophisticated parties who effectively spent $ 6 figures' worth of their time on this; the legal fees are chump change compared to what they've already put in.