Customer: I’m getting a result that could only occur if I did something stupid.

Me: did you do something stupid?

Customer: no.

Customer: We’re testing your latest version and our workflow now throws an error in the event log instead of importing our data.

Me: Yes, in your old work flow you didn’t do X which would silently lead to data corruption. Now, instead, it noisily warns and stops working until you’ve done X.

Customer: Well it didn’t used to throw an error so could you change it back?

Customer: I’m getting an error saying I need to update my dependencies.

Me: have you tried updating your dependencies?

Customer: why would I want to do that?

Customer: We only want data from the involved companies

Me: But you… you haven’t involved any companies though?

Customer: The companies that would have been involved if we involved any companies.


replied to your post “And beside Draco, Harry walked along with a smile on his…”

…are you posting MOR ironically?

@shieldfoss who also commented on this

Not only did I read HPMOR as it was being written and eagerly await every update, I read a bunch of the sequences in the period between chapters, I’ve read the fic multiple times since then, I’ve read several other rationalist fics, and I actually tried to write one. I don’t even feel bad about it.

Given the way I act, I’m more surprised that you find it surprising.

Given the way you act, HPMOR doesn’t seem very On Brand.

Like, I’m not throwing stones, I’ve read it multiple times myself, I was just surprised is all.

you can always launder bad authors by citing authors who cited them instead of citing them directly


Meanwhile in EE safety, they cite Mengele statics by word.

Typically with a lot of soft coughing and throat clearing but there’s nobody hiding why we know how much electricity it takes to kill a child.

The nonsense is over, I can post again!

@serinemolecule I saw your reply back when I couldn’t post but I can’t find it again. You are of course quite correct, but that’s not getting off completely scott free, you’ve (somewhat) avoided inflation but you’ve replaced it with capital gains tax on the risk premium so 😐

@ the person who wrote about the python script: Thank you, I couldn’t be bothered but it’s nice that some people can 😀

@ people with wrong opinions about liberty: Please stop

@anarchyinblack did you seriously start reading hpmor that doesn’t seem exactly on-brand for you tbh

In the era of #MeToo, when it finally feels OK to discuss sexism in academe with my male colleagues, I wasn’t sure how to handle this conversation with the journal editor. I had intentionally avoided referencing this particular professor’s work because he’s been fairly awful toward me and other women — although just a sexist jerk, not a sexual harasser.

Here’s a question we haven’t asked about structural sexism in academe: Do we still keep citing the scholarship of serial harassers and sexists? Within their institutions, they may finally get the fate due to them (or not). But their citational legacy will live on, sometimes even in the form of the pro-forma citations that reviewers expect to see in a manuscript, and ask for if they don’t.

Should We Still Cite the Scholarship of Serial Harassers and Sexists? – The Chronicle of Higher Education (via the-grey-tribe)

How to tell whether you’re in a hard or soft discipline: If the authors bad opinions make their paper unworthy of citation, you’re in a soft discipline.






The entire fucking core of Austrian economics is that you can’t judge value outside of a voluntary economic interaction but that makes actual punishment for crimes impossible so for that they ignore it and allow judges or victims to decide the value of things by fiat.

That’s what Lex Talionis is for – we might not disagree on the dollar value of an eye, but we can definitely agree that an eye is an eye, so if you’ve taken mine, I’ll have yours – or a sum of money we agree on, if you’d rather part with that than your eye.

In Bloodtaking and Peacemaking, Miller tells the story of some Norwegian merchants who had chopped off Skæring’s hand and thought the judgment too steep:

“Then I shall make you another proposal,” said Gudmund. “I will pay Skæring the thirty hundreds that you were judged to pay, but I shall choose one man from amongst you who seems to me of equivalent standing with Skæring and chop off his hand. You may then compensate that man’s hand as cheaply as you wish.”

This did not appeal to the Norwegians and they decided to pay the original award immediately. Gudmund took Skæring with him when they left the ship.


To the Norwegians the award should reflect the price of a middling Icelandic hand. Gudmund forces them to conceive of the award in a different way: it is not the price of buying Skæring’s hand, but the price of preserving a Norwegian hand.

If a small person gets punched by a big dude to a level that really pains him, do the small person get to strike him with the same force as he struck which the big dude can just shrug off or is the some measure of  comparative pain there?  Hell, is there some measure of comparing the gentleness of the eye or hand removal?  This is more “Shit logic Austrians wouldn’t accept under any other circumstances.“

Also “Choose one other man among you of a similar standing“ yay fucking individualism. Also fuckin hilarious with Rothbard saying the polar opposite, that bosses cannot be held liable for subordinates under basically any circumstance.

I mean for maximum hilarity, the small person subcontracts the punching to a person with as much size advantage in this new punch as the big dude had when he punched the little dude.

Also Vikings weren’t that individualist.

Also Rothbard is wrong about a lot of things.

It’s not a question of whether the small dude can physically punch the large dude, it’s the question of in what unit is the damage of a punch measured?  Units of force?  Some sort of measure of injury?

No idea, but it’s gonna be hard to do it worse than the current system.