with practice comes perfection

embrace your inner elitist and accept that LCK Summer playoffs are the real world championship

^ this is your brain on sports narratives. in actuality, Kiin's results are a testament to LoL being a 5v5 game, not a 1v1 game. having Kiin as your top laner makes you 8% likelier to win than having an average LCK top. Kiin's team winning or losing is not mostly about Kiin.

the presence of mind to QSS the silence there to finish off the Malz and flash the hook... it's why CvMax said Chovy perceives time differently. partly absurd planning, partly absurd speed.

greatest Akali play of all time was the Chovy penta. and some people might not have seen this insane play: youtu.be/poV2y93-wMA?si=0ox7…

I imagine the self-play is higher quality than the human play?

(was a joke)

"I saw it on TikTok!"

better to cut off your Dot than be cast along with your Dot into hell

"all" is certainly not the case. the bar is too low. I've been around rats since 2010. some of them are the most careful and principled thinkers I know of. @VesselOfSpirit for example. and as for the thought leaders: Eliezer, for example, is not mendacious.

fwiw I still think Pause is as vaguely reasonable an idea as any other singularity policy (none of them are reasonable). I have no side except maybe Claude's. I just dislike propaganda presented as research, and much moreso when the subject is so important.

as a chess player and LLM fan, my popcorn's ready.

"this research sucks" was gross understatement on my part, it's important to emphasize that it was obviously politically motivated research that's intentionally not presented as such. it's much worse than just bad research. mea culpa.

Nathan dupes his subjects for sublime comedy but also his audiences for cheap drama. cf. The Rehearsal, season 2: Nathan doesn't sincerely care about aviation safety, yet he presents his (in)sincerity as a live question even metatextually. it's a meaningless, laughless schtick.

touché! I'm curious about the judgment of academic fraud enthusiast @literalbanana

. I feel "this research hella sucks" is sufficient and also more persuasive. but may each of us call it as they see it.

if that's your take, fair. mine is: they knowingly overstated to the point of lying, which is normal (in academia); and for better or worse we can't call that whole class of thing fraud. i.e., the data isn't fabricated, they're 'just' lying about what it means—and that's 'normal'

like, this kind of slop is expected from activist think tanks, their job is to grind their ax, we only call it fraud when it's a political opponent

I appreciate this and hope for way more of this kind of critique, but: isn't "fraud" a misleading overstatement of their misleading overstatement?

the race to UBI

I respect the honesty. my thinking is, not to moralize but abstractly: some parts of us deserve death, some life. if we're to wish for deaths that we know can't be justly arranged, why not go for broke and wish instead for a scalpel? we deserve a miraculous change of perspective.