dashdsrdash

Is that actually true? Have they been audited? One problem with long-term storage is "long-term" is a thing that humans are bad at.

The main character commits rape because this isn't a real universe anyway. You made the right choice.

It's true, but they are still fairly easy to injure.

Try forming a fist and then hitting with the outside edge of the hand instead of your poor little fingers.

Or learn from your ancestors and become a tool-using mammal. I understand milkshakes have a distinct fondness for fascists.

Mike is a fed, yes.

So is Steve. The snack thing is left over from his previous undercover assignment at NORML. That didn't end well, but he's pretty sure he can get Mike to agree to buy explosives, which will be a good bust.

Shorter: "Let's assume that I'm a godling. I will definitely be an evil god. Here's how."

My friend's father -- coincidentally named Feinman, not Feynman - used to say "They always advertise what they haven't got."

"Less Wrong".

It's not that verbing nouns weirds language so much as the regreekification.

Genetically altering IQ is more or less about flipping a sufficient number of IQ-decreasing variants to their IQ-increasing counterparts. This sounds overly simplified, but it’s surprisingly accurate; most of the variance in the genome is linear in nature, by which I mean the effect of a gene doesn’t usually depend on which other genes are present

Contradicted by previous text in the same article (diabetes), not to mention have you even opened a college-level genetics text in the last decade?

Anyway, I would encourage these people to flip their own genome a lot, except that they probably won't take the minimum necessary precautions of doing so under observation in isolation. "Science is whatever people in white coats say it is, and I bought a nice white coat off Amazon!"

The thing about rationalists is that they are fully invested in irrational beliefs, which they prefer not to examine. In other words, just like most people, but with a specific terminology that, if they use it properly, identifies them as one of the elect.

I suggest that whenever your relative talks about EA, you talk about kindness. When they bring up longtermism, point out that you have to survive in the short term to reach the long term, so working on better policies now is rather important. If they start in on life extension, note that until quite recently, all the major advances in improving average human lifespan come from improving infant mortality, and be prepared to explain the demographic transition.

When they go extropian, say that it's a nice vision of the future but your kids are unlikely to see it unless we fix the world we're currently in.

But most of all, point out that multiplying infinitesimals by infinities to justify any course of action (a) is Pascal's Wager and (b) justifies every course of action -- so it can't justify any.

That's the downside of the XKCD unlucky ten thousand.

“If there’s an order for Ebola that’s being ordered by the CDC in Atlanta, that’s great,”

said no one sane, ever.

How about: "We have an installation in the CDC's BSL-4 laboratory where we print dangerous DNA on demand, and a second installation in their BSL-2 space where we print less-dangerous material. Nothing ever has to leave the building."

That would be something close to rational policy.

So, uh...

• "almost all of the talented executives and ops people were in 1950" ::> what the ever-living fuck? Citations needed. Many, many citations, because what would be special about the people born in 1900-1925 to distinguish them from the people born in 1950-1975 or any other particular period?
• Also, why would anyone think that they didn't have children?
• or that executive/operational success is heritable
• or even repeatable?
• "no blog post I can figure out how to write could even come close to making more people being good executives" ::> I'm not sure anyone proceeding from these unexamined assumptions could write a blog post explaining how to make pickles.