Import with article-aligned highlight order

content/bookmarks/-playing-chess-in-postscript.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: ♟️Playing Chess in PostScript
+date: "2024-10-02T05:20:01Z"
+bookmarkOf: https://seriot.ch/projects/pschess.html
+references:
+  bookmark:
+    url: https://seriot.ch/projects/pschess.html
+    type: entry
+    name: A Chess Engine in PostScript
+    summary: Here is a quick overview about the making and inner working of PSChess.
+tags:
+- creativity
+- curious
+- tech
+- why-not
+---
+A curious person implements a chess program in an unlikely place: on your printer.
+
+I’m always slightly blown away by people who build something because they want to explore and “why not”, rather than for any particular utility. This project is no exception!
+
+It’s been a while since I files this link away for future me to read, and I now conveniently have a printer to be able to try it on, so I’ll definitely be reading the follow up post and trying it out if I can!

content/bookmarks/a-4d-political-compass/index.md

@@ -12,7 +12,8 @@ references:
     summary: Despite its designers’ hopes that it might beckon in a new era of more
       nuanced political discourse, the political compass has largely been reduced
       to meme-fodder. This popularised version of …
-summary: A friend explores some changes and additions to their favourite political compass.
+summary: A friend explores some changes and additions to their favourite political
+  compass.
 ---
 A friend explores some changes and additions to their favourite political compass. Changes I _really_ like! I particularly appreciate that it shows (what I see as) real and understandable motivation for each of the directions and places upon it; it's relatable to consider someone operating in both a "thriving" or "surviving" mindset, similarly I can understand an "obliged" mindset as much as I can an "atomised" one. I firmly believe that _good_ political outcomes derive from being able to _understand_ those who disagree with you, and this helps!
 
@@ -20,9 +21,17 @@ I certainly plan on spending some time thinking about a 3D version that popped i
 
 ### Highlights
 
-> to describe individuals within a society as being either Atomised from each other, or Obliged to each other. Replacing Coupled-Decoupled with Obliged-Atomised makes no fundamental change to the model, but reduces the need to preface the model with an explanation about what is being meant by societal coupling.
+> We can characterise the 4 different axes as follows:
+> 
+> | Individuals’ duties to one another:    | Obliged – Atomised        |
+> | -------------------------------------- | ------------------------- |
+> | The purpose of society for its people: | Thrive – Survive          |
+> | Society’s role in the wider world:     | Neutral – Interventionist |
+> | Approach to making changes:            | Gradual – Radical         |
+> 
+> Therefore the original political compass covers the axes expressing our views on “individuals’ duties to one another” and “the purpose of society for its people” – these could be summarised as “how you think the world should act on you”.
 
-This seems like an excellent choice.
+I really like how the two new axis provide a subject/object inversion like this. It makes me reconsider my notion of neutral/interventionist being a different subjective scale (ie. Leviathan scale) of Atomised/Obliged.
 
 ---
 
@@ -30,6 +39,12 @@ This seems like an excellent choice.
 
 ---
 
+> to describe individuals within a society as being either Atomised from each other, or Obliged to each other. Replacing Coupled-Decoupled with Obliged-Atomised makes no fundamental change to the model, but reduces the need to preface the model with an explanation about what is being meant by societal coupling.
+
+This seems like an excellent choice.
+
+---
+
 > For the extreme of the bottom quadrant, the only label that makes sense to me is Anarchism.
 
 ---
@@ -48,7 +63,7 @@ This seems like an excellent choice.
 
 > My take on the political compass therefore looks like this:
 
-{{< figure alt="A square balanced on its border with four quadrants separated again into three rings from centre outwards. Centrist sits at the centre, with Nationalist above, and Fascist at the upward extreme. To the right beyond centrist is Corporatist then Feudalist. Downwards has Liberal then Anarchist. Finally leftward is Socialist then Communist." caption="My own (SVG) replica of Atlas Pragmatica’s “inward” political compass. Yes, it works in both dark and light modes and yes, it took much longer to make than I'd care to admit… (CC BY-SA 4.0)" src="./atlas-pragmatica-inward-compass.svg" >}}
+{{< figure alt="A square balanced on its border with four quadrants separated again into three rings from centre outwards. Centrist sits at the centre, with Nationalist above, and Fascist at the upward extreme. To the right beyond centrist is Corporatist then Feudalist. Downwards has Liberal then Anarchist. Finally leftward is Socialist then Communist." caption="My own (SVG) replica of Atlas Pragmatica’s “inward” political compass. Yes, it works in both dark and light modes and yes, it took much longer to make than I’d care to admit… (CC BY-SA 4.0)" src="./atlas-pragmatica-inward-compass.svg" >}}
 
 ---
 
@@ -58,6 +73,18 @@ This seems like an excellent choice.
 
 ---
 
+> an axis of Gradual vs. Radical, which I would argue is not well captured at all by the existing two axes.
+
+The speed with which change is necessary is definitely an overlooked dimension, as we’ve all grown somewhat accustomed to the break-neck rate of change in our societies since (at least) the invention of the internet.
+
+This does feel a little imbalanced and _unidirectional_ though. It implies that a centrist is comfortable with some imprecise amount of change that’s faster than gradual though, which seems a little off to me.
+
+I think there’s something worth exploring in the _other_ extent of this axis (though it does destroy the rather eloquent categorisations that come later): a desire to return to simpler, possibly even less human-dominant, times. I wonder where societies like the Amish sit in this compass without it.
+
+One extreme of this “regressive-progressive” axis could be primitivism, with the other extreme being accelerationism. Though this has the annoying implication that a centrist wants things to stay exactly as they are, which isn’t really suitable either, so you’d want to squash this axis to have “gradual” at the centre, “progressive” to be directionally out of the metaphorical page, and “regressive” a _shorter_ distance into it.
+
+---
+
 > This Gradual-Radical axis is quite well aligned with another conceptual spectrum – the divide between ideology and empiricism. People that subscribe to an ideology, and see the world through a particular lens, are likely to want to immediately address any issues they perceive. In contrast, those that are less ideological, and prefer to see empirical evidence before proceeding are much more likely to support an incremental approach.
 
 ---
@@ -81,29 +108,3 @@ I’m less convinced by the need for this axis (it feels quite intertwined with
 ---
 
 > _Militant_ as the extreme of Radical and Interventionist – militants are also uncompromising, but their focus is often on bringing the world into line with their ideology. Cuban Revolutionaries, supporting guerilla warfare across South America fit this category – offering their help to any that were willing to take up cause against the US and global capitalist interests.
-
----
-
-> We can characterise the 4 different axes as follows:
-> 
-> | Individuals’ duties to one another:    | Obliged – Atomised        |
-> | -------------------------------------- | ------------------------- |
-> | The purpose of society for its people: | Thrive – Survive          |
-> | Society’s role in the wider world:     | Neutral – Interventionist |
-> | Approach to making changes:            | Gradual – Radical         |
-> 
-> Therefore the original political compass covers the axes expressing our views on “individuals’ duties to one another” and “the purpose of society for its people” – these could be summarised as “how you think the world should act on you”.
-
-I really like how the two new axis provide a subject/object inversion like this. It makes me reconsider my notion of neutral/interventionist being a different subjective scale (ie. Leviathan scale) of Atomised/Obliged.
-
----
-
-> an axis of Gradual vs. Radical, which I would argue is not well captured at all by the existing two axes.
-
-The speed with which change is necessary is definitely an overlooked dimension, as we’ve all grown somewhat accustomed to the break-neck rate of change in our societies since (at least) the invention of the internet.
-
-This does feel a little imbalanced and _unidirectional_ though. It implies that a centrist is comfortable with some imprecise amount of change that’s faster than gradual though, which seems a little off to me.
-
-I think there’s something worth exploring in the _other_ extent of this axis (though it does destroy the rather eloquent categorisations that come later): a desire to return to simpler, possibly even less human-dominant, times. I wonder where societies like the Amish sit in this compass without it.
-
-One extreme of this “regressive-progressive” axis could be primitivism, with the other extreme being accelerationism. Though this has the annoying implication that a centrist wants things to stay exactly as they are, which isn’t really suitable either, so you’d want to squash this axis to have “gradual” at the centre, “progressive” to be directionally out of the metaphorical page, and “regressive” a _shorter_ distance into it.

content/bookmarks/a-primer-on-dopamine.md

@@ -36,26 +36,6 @@ I’ve been (ha!) pleasantly surprised by how this article pulls lots of differe
 
 ### Highlights
 
-> The more interesting part is that dopamine (and hence desire) is intensified when we get positively surprised.
-
----
-
-> our brain is constantly betting: which choice can lead to the highest gain for the minimum investment.
-
----
-
-> [Games are problems people pay to solve.](https://invertedpassion.com/games-are-problems-people-pay-to-solve/)
-
----
-
-> You can imagine dopamine as signalling the [value of work](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4696912/).
-
----
-
-> all classic high-dopamine activities are low-effort, high-reward situations
-
----
-
 > It’s easy to confuse “liking” and “wanting”
 
 ---
@@ -72,6 +52,10 @@ I’ve been (ha!) pleasantly surprised by how this article pulls lots of differe
 
 ---
 
+> The more interesting part is that dopamine (and hence desire) is intensified when we get positively surprised.
+
+---
+
 > even in the absence of perfect information, we have to take actions.
 
 ---
@@ -80,7 +64,7 @@ I’ve been (ha!) pleasantly surprised by how this article pulls lots of differe
 
 ---
 
-> The gap in knowledge about the reward generating process is intensely motivating
+> our brain is constantly betting: which choice can lead to the highest gain for the minimum investment.
 
 ---
 
@@ -116,6 +100,18 @@ I’ve been (ha!) pleasantly surprised by how this article pulls lots of differe
 
 ---
 
+> The gap in knowledge about the reward generating process is intensely motivating
+
+---
+
+> You can imagine dopamine as signalling the [value of work](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4696912/).
+
+---
+
+> all classic high-dopamine activities are low-effort, high-reward situations
+
+---
+
 > we actively seek high-dopamine producing situations
 
 ---
@@ -132,6 +128,10 @@ I’ve been (ha!) pleasantly surprised by how this article pulls lots of differe
 
 ---
 
+> [Games are problems people pay to solve.](https://invertedpassion.com/games-are-problems-people-pay-to-solve/)
+
+---
+
 > We love stories because they’re partial puzzles for our brain to solve.
 
 From the associated tweet:

content/bookmarks/bullshit-not-hallucination.md

@@ -25,22 +25,6 @@ In short: if bullshit is delivering information without concern for its truth th
 
 ### Highlights
 
-> at minimum, the outputs of LLMs like ChatGPT are soft bullshit:
-
-I am fully convinced by the arguments for this put forward in this paper; so I’ll be referring to erroneous LLM output as ~hallucination~ bullshit from now on.
-
----
-
-> ChatGPT is a bullshit machine
-
----
-
-> The very same process occurs when its outputs happen to be true.
-
-An excellent point; if an inaccuracy in an LLMs output is called a hallucination then why is an accuracy anything different?
-
----
-
 > these are often called “AI hallucinations”. We argue that these falsehoods, and the overall activity of large language models, is better understood as _bullshit_ in the sense explored by Frankfurt (On Bullshit, Princeton, 2005):
 
 ---
@@ -63,7 +47,9 @@ Neither of these words really describes what’s going on inside an LLM when a f
 
 ---
 
-> we call bullshit on ChatGPT.
+> at minimum, the outputs of LLMs like ChatGPT are soft bullshit:
+
+I am fully convinced by the arguments for this put forward in this paper; so I’ll be referring to erroneous LLM output as ~hallucination~ bullshit from now on.
 
 ---
 
@@ -71,6 +57,10 @@ Neither of these words really describes what’s going on inside an LLM when a f
 
 ---
 
+> we call bullshit on ChatGPT.
+
+---
+
 > The problem here isn’t that large language models hallucinate, lie, or misrepresent the world in some way. It’s that they are not designed to represent the world at all; instead, they are designed to convey convincing lines of text.
 
 ---
@@ -103,8 +93,18 @@ I love that the authors worked this superb Dad joke into this paper 😂
 
 ---
 
+> ChatGPT is a bullshit machine
+
+---
+
 > if something is bullshit to start with, then its repetition “is bullshit as he \[or it\] repeats it, insofar as it was originated by someone who was unconcerned with whether what he was saying is true or false”
 
 ---
 
+> The very same process occurs when its outputs happen to be true.
+
+An excellent point; if an inaccuracy in an LLMs output is called a hallucination then why is an accuracy anything different?
+
+---
+
 > Calling these inaccuracies ‘bullshit’ rather than ‘hallucinations’ isn’t just more accurate (as we’ve argued); it’s good science and technology communication in an area that sorely needs it.

content/bookmarks/neologisms.md

@@ -16,11 +16,15 @@ I love creating or finding words for niche (or expanding) concepts and areas. Th
 
 ### Highlights
 
-> #### Neofeudalism
+> #### Epistemic Peer
 > 
-> The new Feudalist system we all rely upon for online security. No single person or company can defend themselves against hackers, attackers and trolls without aligning themselves with one of the monolithic fortresses (Apple, Facebook, Google, or Microsoft). We hide behind their enormous cybersecurity teams. We're required to live within their walls and tolerate whatever surveillance suits their business model. It's feudalism, with likes.
+> People who have demonstrated clear cognitive overlap with you. You trust their thinking enough that if they feel strongly about a topic you haven't researched, you're willing to defer to their judgement. If they disagree with you, you take it seriously. Even if you don't change your mind, you consider their viewpoint valid.
+> 
+> You earn epistemic peerhood by doing your research on topics you choose to write about, presenting compelling evidence, and making creative arguments that help reframe existing debates in more interesting ways.
 
-I feel like Cory Doctorow is good at giving catchy names to concepts we don’t entirely think about, but probably should. (“Enshitification” will live the lifetime of capitalism because of him!)
+I love this concept! It feels like we’re missing it a lot on the web (see [the web’s missing communication faculty](/posts/webs-missing-communication-faculty/)), I fully intend to seek out and recognise people who can be my _epistemic peers_.
+
+(Though I think declaring who they are might be a security risk?)
 
 ---
 
@@ -44,6 +48,14 @@ Is this a neologism‽ I thought this was a pre-information age expression!
 
 ---
 
+> #### Neofeudalism
+> 
+> The new Feudalist system we all rely upon for online security. No single person or company can defend themselves against hackers, attackers and trolls without aligning themselves with one of the monolithic fortresses (Apple, Facebook, Google, or Microsoft). We hide behind their enormous cybersecurity teams. We're required to live within their walls and tolerate whatever surveillance suits their business model. It's feudalism, with likes.
+
+I feel like Cory Doctorow is good at giving catchy names to concepts we don’t entirely think about, but probably should. (“Enshitification” will live the lifetime of capitalism because of him!)
+
+---
+
 > #### Theoretical Graffitiability
 > 
 > The degree to which an academic theory can be captured in graffiti in public space. I coined this one after someone posted a photo of the [futures cone](https://sjef.nu/theory-of-change-and-the-futures-cone/) in spray paint.
@@ -57,15 +69,3 @@ Is this a neologism‽ I thought this was a pre-information age expression!
 > You set out to fix a broken image in your code, which leads to refactoring the image rendering function, which requires updating your npm packages, but first you need to plan this all out in Jira, and then install the latest version of Adobe Flash, and on and on in seemingly logical sequence until you find yourself in a zoo... shaving a yak.
 
 I love the origins of this phrase; a Ren and Stimpy cartoon where Ren (?) has to shave a yak to get fluff for his pillow so he can get some sleep 😁
-
----
-
-> #### Epistemic Peer
-> 
-> People who have demonstrated clear cognitive overlap with you. You trust their thinking enough that if they feel strongly about a topic you haven't researched, you're willing to defer to their judgement. If they disagree with you, you take it seriously. Even if you don't change your mind, you consider their viewpoint valid.
-> 
-> You earn epistemic peerhood by doing your research on topics you choose to write about, presenting compelling evidence, and making creative arguments that help reframe existing debates in more interesting ways.
-
-I love this concept! It feels like we’re missing it a lot on the web (see [the web’s missing communication faculty](/posts/webs-missing-communication-faculty/)), I fully intend to seek out and recognise people who can be my _epistemic peers_.
-
-(Though I think declaring who they are might be a security risk?)

content/bookmarks/shaping-the-future.md

@@ -70,12 +70,12 @@ An excellent read from Charlie Stross, made all the more interesting because the
 
 ---
 
-> we're going to be laying down memories in diamond that will outlast our bones, and our civilizations, and our languages.
-
----
-
 > This century we're going to learn a lesson about what it means to be unable to forget anything.
 
 ---
 
+> we're going to be laying down memories in diamond that will outlast our bones, and our civilizations, and our languages.
+
+---
+
 > Total history — a term I'd like to coin, by analogy to total war — is something we haven't experienced yet.

content/bookmarks/the-home-as-a-place-of-production.md

@@ -16,10 +16,6 @@ Bringing more creation into our homes as a way to feel connected to our surround
 
 ### Highlights
 
-> Connectivity and the distraction it enables should be contained.
-
----
-
 > Everything is optimised for convenience, comfort and safety for the consumer (and surveillance/value extraction for the corporations providing it).
 > 
 > This vision doesn’t sound very smart to me. Not only is it incredibly dull, it’s also totally disempowering.
@@ -34,6 +30,10 @@ Bringing more creation into our homes as a way to feel connected to our surround
 
 ---
 
+> Connectivity and the distraction it enables should be contained.
+
+---
+
 > Part of the appeal of leaving the city is the potential to create homes (and lives) that allow for a greater diversity of activities.
 
 ---

content/bookmarks/the-looking-glass-the-year-of-everyday-risks.md

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ I plan on taking some every day risks this year & always.
 
 ---
 
-> Everyday risks are not about the action in of itself; they are about the _feeling_.
+> Aliveness is risk, not comfort.
 
 ---
 
@@ -36,4 +36,4 @@ I plan on taking some every day risks this year & always.
 
 ---
 
-> Aliveness is risk, not comfort.
+> Everyday risks are not about the action in of itself; they are about the _feeling_.

content/bookmarks/the-tilted-political-compass.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+title: The Tilted Political Compass
+date: "2024-09-18T14:06:01Z"
+emoji: "\U0001F9ED"
+publishDate: "2019-03-01T16:05:25Z"
+bookmarkOf: https://everythingstudies.com/2019/03/01/the-tilted-political-compass-part-1-left-and-right/
+references:
+  bookmark:
+    url: https://everythingstudies.com/2019/03/01/the-tilted-political-compass-part-1-left-and-right/
+    type: entry
+    name: 'The Tilted Political Compass, Part 1: Left and Right'
+    summary: I'm not a fan of the popular Political Compass. Here I explain why, list
+      what makes a good 2-by-2 and rederive the meaning of the political left and
+      right. Read more (10 min, 3300 words).
+---
+I _really_ like the framing of this political compass & how it provides more insight into where people exist on it.
+
+I can absolutely see the survive/thrive alignment (referenced here from Scott Alexander’s linked article), and why it’s _totally reasonable_ to be at either end of that spectrum. I can similarly see why someone’s desire to have their obligations to the world be limited (a decoupled view) or be necessarily unlimited (a coupled view) fits very well indeed with the left/right divides I see in friends and family.
+
+I’m intrigued by what the two unexplored quadrants would be; “coupled, surviving” and “decoupled, thriving” — I have a hunch that’s in part two.
+
+### Highlights
+
+> Stanovich talks about “cognitive decoupling”, the ability to block out context and experiential knowledge and just follow formal rules, as a main component of both performance on intelligence tests and performance on the cognitive bias tests that correlate with intelligence. Cognitive decoupling is the opposite of holistic thinking. It’s the ability to separate, to view things in the abstract, to play devil’s advocate.
+
+---
+
+> While science and engineering disciplines (and analytic philosophy) are populated by people with a knack for decoupling who learn to take this norm for granted, other intellectual disciplines are not.
+
+---
+
+> Novelists, poets, artists and other storytellers like journalists, politicians and PR people rely on thick, rich and ambiguous meanings, associations, implications and allusions to evoke feelings, impressions and ideas in their audience.
+
+---
+
+> At its most general it just means looking at a single issue/question/idea/fact at a time. Related ideas, implications and associations etc. can only be brought in explicitly and with the consent of all parties.
+
+Wow; it’s alarming how seen I feel here 😅
+
+---
+
+> Contextualizing, on the other hand, means that all associative connections between ideas are valid and count as relevant if any party thinks they are.
+
+---
+
+> Political decouplers like money and the market as institutions because they quantify and decontextualize social obligations.
+
+---
+
+> coupled society what it means to be a good person or what may be required of you at any point is open-ended. There are not clear boundaries between people and you are expected to take others’ or society’s interests into account as much as your own.
+
+---
+
+> My hypothesis is that rightism is what happens when you’re optimizing for surviving an unsafe environment, leftism is what happens when you’re optimized for thriving in a safe environment.
+
+Very, very much agree with this.
+
+---
+
+> Then the makers and the things made turned alike into commodities, and the motion of society turned into a kind of zombie dance, a grim cavorting whirl in which objects and people blurred together till the objects were half alive and the people were half dead.
+
+---
+
+> economic relations are stripped of their social elements, of feelings, intentions, meaning and will, turning it all into a machine. It _needs_ to be machine. Machines _work_. But it will never feel quite right for most of us.

content/bookmarks/the-web-s-grain.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ A wonderful presentation on the limitations of the web, and how to adapt to them
 
 ### Highlights
 
-> the less you have to do, the less say you have.
+> The size of what we’re making is unknown until we know what we’re putting there.
 
 ---
 
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ A wonderful presentation on the limitations of the web, and how to adapt to them
 
 ---
 
-> The size of what we’re making is unknown until we know what we’re putting there.
+> the less you have to do, the less say you have.
 
 ---