This. I was so pissed when I saw the EULA for KSP2. I love KSP more than probably any game that has ever been released, due in no small part to the vibrant modding community. The fact that they decided to abuse the very people who made KSP great is disgusting and short slighted.

You hit the nail on the head for the conservative agenda, though that is not as impressive as it once was since they all have started saying the quiet parts out loud. Anyone with enough brain cells in close contact to notice that Jesus was about as anticapitalist as you could possibly get is appalled and concerned for their safety. At least all of the ones I know are.

To your point on the authority of a postdoctoral level person who assumes they are right in hubris, I feel like they have kinda earned it. It is also likely that their "wrong" is going to be far closer to right than that of a lay. I am personally a polymath, so I don't find lay topics for myself very often, but when I do, I do listen to topical experts and respect what they say, while checking the voracity of things that feel off to me using reputable journals and prepublication articles on the likes of arXiv.

If someone is lay and they are either unable of unwilling to do the diligence to verify the person claiming topical authority, then they really need to just take what is said at face value and not enter the more global conversation aside from trying to learn more (eg asking questions). I am so tired of my numbskull uncle claiming that Anthony Faucci doesn't know how viruses work of some distant relation bitching about how student loan forgiveness is theft from taxpayers. My uncle knows nothing about virology and my distant relation couldn't parse economic principles to save his life, but there they sit, acting as counter-authorities to people with doctorates and 40+ years of professional experience. That is the part I want to see stop. If you have a Masters degree, fine, argue with the expert, but if you have never stepped foot inside a classroom where that topic was being taught, just don't. Your opinion is woefully uninformed and thus not worth the CO2 you expended to voice it.

I do like your take on the societal and philosophical underpinnings for the Death of Expertise. It gels well with some things and gives me some avenues to investigate should I finally get fed up with this world enough to write it. Until that time, I will just keep Farnsworthing it.

Damn it... I literally just found draw.io like 2 weeks ago.

Fair enough argument. I do wonder who, in your opinion, is someone who can justifiably have authority on a topic if not a topic expert? Who is reasonable to be educated by?

As for the book, at this point I have not put pen to paper as it were, but the premise is the observation that there is a concerted effort on the part of some political parties to sew so much doubt in subject experts as to render their knowledge meaningless to the general populace and how dangerous that becomes when the situation is something that has potentially dire consequences. I have seen it happening for a long time, but it really came to a head for me in 2020 when I saw entirely lay politicians and pundits undermining warnings from virologists, epidemiologists, and statististians and sewing distrust in public health organizations essentially to trade people's lives for political points. Since then I have been seeing an ever escalating trend for people in category 1 of authority to push the populace away from category 3 on topics which really only category 3 should be talking at all. The rest of us should be shutting up and taking notes, asking questions for clarification, and learning.

Abortion, gender identity, climate change, economics geopolitics, etc. Essentially every topic that has been politicized into a hot button issue is really somerhing that is so beyond complex that we should not be arguing with the people who have dedicated their entire adult lives, sometimes 40+ years, to studying.

My father has the perfect microcosm anecdote from his working days. He worked for a garage door manufacturer who hired some fresh faced MBAs into middle management. They were all sitting in a meeting one day and thought they came up with an amazing idea, so they took it to the veteran engineers who had been designing garage door openers for decades, some of them essentially since the damn things were invented, and told them to make their hairbrained idea. The enginners looked over what they were given and told them that they had had the idea decades earlier and that it did not work and that materials science and engineering had not progressed to the point that it would be feasible. Did the MBAs who were trying to make waves and make a name for themselves listen? Nope, they fired all of the veteran engineers and hired in a bunch of fresh faced engineers who had never actually designed a garage door opener and told them to build their hairbrained idea. The engineers, only knowing what they had learned in school and a couple of years in other jobs got excited by this revolutionary idea and dove into it. Fast forward about 2 years, and millions in R&D, and we find the fresh faced engineers, now not so fresh, somberly telling the MBA dickheads exactly what the veteran engineers had told them initially. This, along with a few other boneheaded schemes to make earnings sheets look better for the MBAs actually ended up tanking the company and it was sold like 10 years later.

Subject expertise matters. Respecting subject expertise matters. Being able to recognize when you are sitting atop Mount DK is one of the finest skills we could ever teach our children.

Even with the somewhat incorrect examples, I want to print this out and hang it as a poster on my wall.

I have to respectfully disagreed with your example. Ostensibly the researcher should be an authority. I think the example given in the chart is not quite right either. I think the confusion comes from the three definitions of "Authority".

1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. "he had absolute authority over his subordinates"

2. a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere. "the health authorities"

3. the power to influence others, especially because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something.

In your example the "Authority" is definition 3, someone with specialized knowledge of a topic that should be listened to by those who are lay on the topic.

In the chart I think they were trying to go for 1, which is the correct source of Authority Bias, but they didn't want to step on toes or get political. The actual example is someone who has decision authority like a police officer or politician or a boss at a workplace who says things and a listener automatically believes them regardless of the speakers actual specialized knowledge of the topic they are speaking on. A better example would be "Believing a vaccine is dangerous because a politician says it is."

This all feeds into a topic I have been kicking around in my head for a while that I have been contemplating attempting to write up as a book. "The Death of Expertise". So many people have been so brainwashed that authorities in definition 3 are met with a frankly asinine amount of incredulity, but authorities in the first are trusted regardless of education or demonstrable specialized knowledge.

I forget the exact quote or who said it, but the gist is that a species cannot be considered sapient (intelligent) on an interplanetary/interstellar stage until they have discovered Calculus. I prefer to use that as my bar for the sapience of those around me as well.

You can't really say Blizzard has not raised prices when they have added microtrans and mental health costs to the game.

Gabe heads a company which is successful because it respects its employees, customers, and suppliers instead of constantly trying to marginalize and abuse them. They are not perfect by any means, but they do fit into the definition of ethical capitalism, which should not be understated. They don't employ anticompetitive tactics like bribing/coercing developers into exclusivity contracts. They don't operate with a bunch of 1099 contractors so they can avoid providing benefits. Etc.

For now. Remember that Project 2025 aims to dismantle both organizations and privitize the NWS's activities.

Fact checking myself: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-what-project-2025-says-about-the-national-weather-service-and-noaa

Honestly, auto generating text descriptions for visually impaired people is probably one of the few potential good uses for LLM + CLIP. Being able to have a brief but accurate description without relying on some jackass to have written it is a bonefied good thing. It isn't even eliminating anyone's job since the jackass doesn't always do it in the first place.

What, you don't want to pay another 80 bucks for what could have been a content patch to last year's game? Pshhh... You're not a real fan.

Is what I would say if I were the type of guy who should take a long walk off a short pier.

This raises a rather sticky situation for the coming years. I have been seeing more and more posts about developers using GPT generated code in various projects. If a game is made and it is found that GPT was used for some parts of the core code, does the whole project lose its copyright?

Other way around. Require sales of licenses to games to be perpetual. The way you phrased it means that the license holders can charge way more.

Many court positions are elected seats. They are probably just expecting him not to run when his term is up or to be ousted.

Same. I initially had the sinking dread then I saw that they actually fixed the arbitration clause and I became quite elated.

Oh hell, I have not had that one yet. I am already leaning away from it with just the random pins showing up on my nav that were not searched for.

Your idea is one of the specific reasons many companies try to label everyone as an "independent contractor". Especially people like voice actors are not "employees", and thus do not count as such for your idea.

I have taken to using my a quote of my own with people recently, on both sides in different situations. Quote: "Those who neither ascribe to nor participate in the social contract of tolerance are not afforded the protection it brings."

I say it to the right when they complain about me calling them out on their BS or making it known that they are generally shit human beings.

I say it to the left when they try to call me out for saying that literal Nazis holding signs on the side of the road should have beverages thrown at them by passing cars at the tamest. I would prefer throwing much heavier objects, but the law protects them. The Law, not the social contract of tolerance. Within the confines of the law, people like that should not be tolerated and should be informed with as much force as possible.

This is a cultural thing. My wife has studdied German culture, particularly relating to their relationship with their language, pretty extensively and from what she says they are exceedingly resistant to changes to their general language at all. Hence all of the compound nouns for new devices instead of coming up with a new word. Apparently the cultural adoption of "Das handy" for cellphone was a cultural milestone since they actually used something new instead of trying to cram together "Mobile Wireless Vocal Communication Device" into one word.