aaronsmithtumbler

Translatio Studii

aaronsmithtumbler:

Wikipedia article of the day is Translatio Studii, “a historiographical concept, originating in the Middle Ages, in which history is viewed as a linear succession of transfers of knowledge or learning from one geographical place and time to another”.

But not just any transfers. All history, they say, is only one day on the timescale of God. And during the course of a day, the sun moves West. And knowledge is the light by which we see the world, much like the sun. So (the philosophers conclude), knowledge must always move West.

A typical model of translatio studii has the center of world knowledge starting in Sumeria around 3000 BC, moving west to Jerusalem during the time of Solomon, then west to Athens during classical Greece, then west to Rome, then west to Paris, and then (say the people talking about this, who are usually Englishmen) west to London. Where (say the people talking about this, who are usually Englishmen) it will no doubt remain for all time.

But a lot has happened since people talked about translatio studii. The idea that the greatest center of learning will always be London seems antiquated now. Yet the overall concept - that knowledge always moves West - seems to have held up pretty well. By the early 1900s, surely the center of learning had moved west from London to the US East Coast - Harvard, Yale, MIT, and the rest. Add Detroit in for the technology aspect, if you want. And now, where’s all of the most interesting technological progress happening? Where is the unevenly-distributed future laid on the thickest? Yeah - Silicon Valley, the westernmost part of the West Coast. And everyone always says the new up-and-coming superpower is China - due west from San Francisco.

Maybe that’s why there’s a Great Stagnation these days. The Sun of Knowledge is hovering somewhere above the Pacific Ocean, where there are no scientists around to take advantage of its full glow. Japan, China, and California can only bask in its twilight fringes, plodding along making minor advances. Has anyone tried starting a research university in Hawaii?

And what after that? India as the scientific superpower of the 22nd century? Iran as the scientific superpower of the 23rd? And then what? We arrive back at Sumeria, the Day of God is over, and we begin again?

Or maybe it doesn’t work that way. Maybe God respects the International Date Line. Maybe California really is the westernmost edge of the world, the Sun of Knowledge is sinking below the horizon, and from this we know the end of the world is near at hand.

Omg Thiel’s backing of seasteading finally makes sense

aaronsmithtumbler
slatestarscratchpad

slatestarscratchpad:

spoonprovider:

huffingtonpost:

Even the fourth-place finisher would have won gold in August.

Here’s your reminder that people with disabilities kick major ass and can literally run circles around able-bodied people. So um… take that ableism.

Does anyone without an ideological axe to grind want to explain what’s going on here?

There are so many more abled than disabled people in the world that statistically it should be really unlikely for the disabled people to win even if disability didn’t affect running at all. For four disabled people to do better than the best abled person doesn’t make sense. Is it something about the way the race is run?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/13/four-paralympics-athletes-ran-1500-meter-final-faster-than-anyone-at-rio-olympics/

“Of course, it’s worth noting that the pace in the Olympic 1,500 meters was deliberately slow, resulting from Centrowitz’s strategy of shooting to the front of the pack early on and then using his position to force a relatively plodding pace. “It’s like youth level, really… . It was beyond slow,” Great Britain’s Charlie Grice, who finished 12th, said after that race.


In his first qualifying round in Rio, Centrowitz ran a 3:39.31, with the fastest time, 3:38.31, run by Jakub Holusa of the Czech Republic. The world record, set in 1998 by Morocco’s Hicham El Guerrouj, is 3:26.00.”

slatestarscratchpad Source: huffpost
slatestarscratchpad

slatestarscratchpad:

Help me understand Net Neutrality.

The argument against worrying is that there wasn’t Net Neutrality before 2015, and there were no problems then.

But telecoms are spending a lot of money lobbying against Net Neutrality, so clearly they have plans to institute some kind of non-neutral networks. But then why didn’t they do those plans before 2015?

Also, what exactly is the benefit to them? Granted they want people to stop wasting loads of bandwidth on Netflix, but couldn’t they just limit your bandwidth to 100 GB, and if you want to waste it all on Netflix and not have any left for anything else that’s your mistake? Are they expecting companies to give them really good deals to prioritize their bandwidth?

it’s worth noting economists largely don’t see the need for it.

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii note a 3-1 weighted margin of “for” vs “against” paid prioritization, minus a significant undecided percentage.

https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ is also worth reading

slatestarscratchpad
slatestarscratchpad

Anonymous asked:

What is your stance on cryptocurrencies and the blockain? Is it like "it looks promising but I'm not going to invest more than a small fraction of my income in something barely understood by 0.1% of people which may suddenly crash thanks to an overly curious hacker"?

slatestarscratchpad answered:

It looks promising, but Bitcoin is already at $5000. The efficient market hypothesis is a harsh master.

I ran an ad for Tezos, and the people involved said they would pay me in Tezoscoins once it launched, so if that goes through I’ll have some cryptocurrency eventually.

slatestarscratchpad

“I really like this argument against voting”, Tom said devotedly

You’ve probably seen the standard pro voting argument. Roughly it goes like this: the difference between the two candidates can be worth $X trillion, your chances of influencing the election are 1 in Y million, therefore the value of voting is some obscene amount like several hundred thousand dollars.

I argue that endorsing this argument entails biting several unpleasant bullets.

1. Imagine a fee of $1000 was required to vote. Would you pay it? Conversely, if someone offered you $1000 to not vote, would you take it? If the above argument is taken seriously then you should, but I suspect many who agree with the above would not pay. If you would, how high would that number need to be to stop you?

2. Imagine Omega deposits $10 million in your bank account. You’re just finalizing your retirement plans when Omega shows up at your door. He tells you that, with certainty , $hated-candidate will win. He gives you a button, and tells that if you press it, he will intervene and cause $slightly-less-hated-candidate to win instead, with certainty. However, pressing the button will cause the $10 million to vanish from your account. If you would not press the button, this places an upper bound on the value of your vote: if the chance of influencing the election is 1 in 10 million then voting can’t be worth more than $1 to you. If you would give up the money, how much money would you not give up? $100 million? Whatever you come up tells you something about your valuation. (Note that since utility of money decreases, this actually over counts your valuation of a vote in terms of money. $10 million is less than a million times better than $10.)

slatestarscratchpad

daniel-r-h asked:

I could have sworn you’d written something about bidets being more sanitary than toilet paper, and this causes fewer diseases caught inside Japanese hospitals than American ones. I even made a note to myself, “Slate Star Codex Bidet”, to go reread that article. However I neglected to include a URL in that note to myself and for the life of me I cannot find any evidence outside my own head and Google Keep account that this exists. Did you write such a thing and/or do you know have a link to it?

slatestarscratchpad answered:

I definitely never wrote this.

slatestarscratchpad