Podcast appearances and mentions of Scott Alexander

This is part two of a series about Jonathan Pageau (  @JonathanPageau  ) and John Verkvaeke (  @johnvervaeke  ) and their respective views on Spirit and pneumatology. I mention Jonathan Pageau, John Vervaeke, Paul Vander Klay, Elizabeth Oldfield, Kale Zelden, Rod Dreher, Grim Grizz, , Ed Hutchins, Tucker Carlson, St. Anthony of the Desert, Athanasius, David Sloan Wilson, John Calvin, Tanya Luhrmann, Charles Taylor, Chuck Colson, Will Barlow, Scott Alexander, Robert Falconer, Richard Schwarz, Chris Masterpietro (Vervaeke's collaborator), Jung (Carl Jung), Michael (Archangel), Jesus Christ, Satan, Andre Antunes, Daniel (prophet), Mary Harrington, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Meno, Gregory of Nyssa, Father John Bear, Hank (presumably Hank Green from a referenced conversation), Barack Obama, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, George Cybenko, Kurt Hornik, Jonathan Losos, Richard Dawkins, Jordan Peterson, Baldwin (James Mark Baldwin), Alex O'Connor, Nero Caesar, Adam, Plotinus, Spinoza (Benedict de Spinoza), Dan Wagenmaker, (Upton) Sinclair, Bishop VT Williams, Raphael (Raff), Anderson Day, William Desmond, Charles StangMidwestuary Info and Tickets - https://www.midwestuary.com/Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMjEY3BOPPI&t=928sDavid Sloan Wilson Dialogue - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CAyvVdNSzIWill Barlow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DoIgcSWJnE&t=4065s

In this blog post, we analyse how the recent AI 2027 forecast by Daniel Kokotajlo, Scott Alexander, Thomas Larsen, Eli Lifland, and Romeo Dean has been discussed across Chinese language platforms. We present: Our research methodology and synthesis of key findings across media artefacts A proposal for how censorship patterns may provide signal for the Chinese government's thinking about AGI and the race to superintelligence A more detailed analysis of each of the nine artefacts, organised by type: Mainstream Media, Forum Discussion, Bilibili (Chinese Youtube) Videos, Personal Blogs.Methodology We conducted a comprehensive search across major Chinese-language platforms–including news outlets, video platforms, forums, microblogging sites, and personal blogs–to collect the media featured in this report. We supplemented this with Deep Research to identify additional sites mentioning AI 2027. Our analysis focuses primarily on content published in the first few days (4-7 April) following the report's release. More media [...] ---Outline:(00:58) Methodology(01:36) Summary(02:48) Censorship as Signal(07:29) Analysis(07:53) Mainstream Media(07:57) English Title: Doomsday Timeline is Here! Former OpenAI Researcher's 76-page Hardcore Simulation: ASI Takes Over the World in 2027, Humans Become NPCs(10:27) Forum Discussion(10:31) English Title: What do you think of former OpenAI researcher's AI 2027 predictions?(13:34) Bilibili Videos(13:38) English Title: [AI 2027] A mind-expanding wargame simulation of artificial intelligence competition by a former OpenAI researcher(15:24) English Title: Predicting AI Development in 2027(17:13) Personal Blogs(17:16) English Title: Doomsday Timeline: AI 2027 Depicts the Arrival of Superintelligence and the Fate of Humanity Within the Decade(18:30) English Title: AI 2027: Expert Predictions on the Artificial Intelligence Explosion(21:57) English Title: AI 2027: A Science Fiction Article(23:16) English Title: Will AGI Take Over the World in 2027?(25:46) English Title: AI 2027 Prediction Report: AI May Fully Surpass Humans by 2027(27:05) Acknowledgements--- First published: April 30th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JW7nttjTYmgWMqBaF/early-chinese-language-media-coverage-of-the-ai-2027-report --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Eneasz and Liam discuss Scott Alexander's post “Twilight of the Edgelords,” an exploration of Truth, Morality, and how one balances love of truth vs not destabilizing the world economy and political regime. CORRECTION: Scott did make an explicitly clear pro … Continue reading →

The Studies Show LIVE (with special guest Jesse Singal) is next Friday, 9th of May, at Conway Hall in London. Get your tickets right HERE! Or go to bit.ly/tss_live. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. can't be wrong about literally everything, can he? His latest controversial statement is that he wants to find the “environmental exposure” that has been causing the huge spike in autism rates over the past few decades.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into whether there really is an autism epidemic in the first place—and if there isn't, why the diagnoses might be going up so quickly anyway.The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. This week we discussed the article from the most recent issue about the UK's land value tax—a cautionary tale of a policy that might sound good on paper, but was utterly cursed in practice. Find this and so many more fascinating articles about human progress at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* RFK Jr's latest claims about autism (and his plans to gather data)* His statement “I believe autism comes from vaccines”, from 2023* His “Children's Health Defence” org from 2015* CDC data on autism rates in the US* And similar data from the UK* A paper on the much lower rates in 1966* “Early infantile autism” - the original 1944 paper by Leo Kanner* Hans Asperger's similarly-timed research* And on his collaboration with the Nazis* On “refrigerator mothers”* Data from after the MMR vaccine was split in Yokohama, Japan* The DSM-V checklist for autism spectrum disorder* Scott Alexander's controversial piece “Against against autism cures”* 2023 paper on the prevalence of profound autism* Article on the growing waiting lists for autism diagnoses* More details on the same* 2022 paper on the genetics of autism* Article on rates of extra time in exams in the UK* Adam Hunt's post about Renée Thornton, hot-air balloonist* The Economist's Bagehot column on the “tyranny of turning up”* Underdiagnosed autism in girlsCreditsWe're grateful to Adam Hunt for talking to us about psychiatric diagnoses for this episode. The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Don't forget THE STUDIES SHOW LIVE—on 9 May in London! You can buy tickets at this link, or by going to bit.ly/tss_live.What's going to be the next pandemic? For a long time you might've seen news stories about the current threat of H5N1 bird flu, but you probably haven't paid much attention. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart try and work out how worried we should be. Are COVID-scarred people freaking out over nothing? Or are we at the start of something much scarier?The Studies Show is brought you by Works in Progress magazine, a beautifully-produced magazine about science and technological progress. In the current issue you can read articles about new fertility technologies, land value tax, and the one we mentioned in the show, about prehistoric psychopaths. Find it all at worksinprogress.co.Show notes* The UK's “Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy”* “Of course the UK had a herd immunity strategy”* Tom's article on “the men who failed Britain”* The CDC on types of influenza virus* 2025 Harvard Medical School article on H5N1 bird flu* Article on the wild animal deaths caused by bird flu in the current outbreak* And the same for domestic animals* Egg prices! 1, 2* 2011 paper on haemagglutinin in avian flu viruses and its infectiousness to humans * Pigs as the “mixing vessel” for flu viruses* And the potential for cows to be the same* The controversial 2012 Science paper that modified a blue flu virus to be more infectious* The WHO's seeming low level of concern about the bird flu outbreak* Pasteurised milk and its effects on bird flu transmission* The Swift Centre's forecasts for the bird flu outbreak* Scott Alexander's big piece on bird flu* The evidence for the effect of antivirals on bird flu* DOGE cuts to a programme that monitored bird flu in dairy products, and to animal monitoringCreditsWe're very grateful to Claire Wang for her help with researching this episode. The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Matt and Nic are back for another week of news and deals. In this episode:  What's the deal with the tariffs? Are the tariffs 4D chess? STABLE Act advances from committee Galaxy settles with the NYAG for touting Luna Trump pardons the BitMEX founders Coinlist returns to the US FDUSD has a depeg amidst Justin Sun drama Fidelity launches a no-fee crypto IRA product Larry Fink is bullish bitcoin Content mentioned: AI 2027, by Daniel Kokotajlo, Scott Alexander, Thomas Larsen, Eli Lifland, Romeo Dean

Scott and Daniel break down every month from now until the 2027 intelligence explosion.Scott Alexander is author of the highly influential blogs Slate Star Codex and Astral Codex Ten. Daniel Kokotajlo resigned from OpenAI in 2024, rejecting a non-disparagement clause and risking millions in equity to speak out about AI safety.We discuss misaligned hive minds, Xi and Trump waking up, and automated Ilyas researching AI progress.I came in skeptical, but I learned a tremendous amount by bouncing my objections off of them. I highly recommend checking out their new scenario planning document, AI 2027Watch on Youtube; listen on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.----------Sponsors* WorkOS helps today's top AI companies get enterprise-ready. OpenAI, Cursor, Perplexity, Anthropic and hundreds more use WorkOS to quickly integrate features required by enterprise buyers. To learn more about how you can make the leap to enterprise, visit workos.com* Jane Street likes to know what's going on inside the neural nets they use. They just released a black-box challenge for Dwarkesh listeners, and I had blast trying it out. See if you have the skills to crack it at janestreet.com/dwarkesh* Scale's Data Foundry gives major AI labs access to high-quality data to fuel post-training, including advanced reasoning capabilities. If you're an AI researcher or engineer, learn about how Scale's Data Foundry and research lab, SEAL, can help you go beyond the current frontier at scale.com/dwarkeshTo sponsor a future episode, visit dwarkesh.com/advertise.----------Timestamps(00:00:00) - AI 2027(00:06:56) - Forecasting 2025 and 2026(00:14:41) - Why LLMs aren't making discoveries(00:24:33) - Debating intelligence explosion(00:49:45) - Can superintelligence actually transform science?(01:16:54) - Cultural evolution vs superintelligence(01:24:05) - Mid-2027 branch point(01:32:30) - Race with China(01:44:47) - Nationalization vs private anarchy(02:03:22) - Misalignment(02:14:52) - UBI, AI advisors, & human future(02:23:00) - Factory farming for digital minds(02:26:52) - Daniel leaving OpenAI(02:35:15) - Scott's blogging advice Get full access to Dwarkesh Podcast at www.dwarkesh.com/subscribe

In 2021 I wrote what became my most popular blog post: What 2026 Looks Like. I intended to keep writing predictions all the way to AGI and beyond, but chickened out and just published up till 2026. Well, it's finally time. I'm back, and this time I have a team with me: the AI Futures Project. We've written a concrete scenario of what we think the future of AI will look like. We are highly uncertain, of course, but we hope this story will rhyme with reality enough to help us all prepare for what's ahead. You really should go read it on the website instead of here, it's much better. There's a sliding dashboard that updates the stats as you scroll through the scenario! But I've nevertheless copied the first half of the story below. I look forward to reading your comments.Mid 2025: Stumbling Agents The [...] ---Outline:(01:35) Mid 2025: Stumbling Agents(03:13) Late 2025: The World's Most Expensive AI(08:34) Early 2026: Coding Automation(10:49) Mid 2026: China Wakes Up(13:48) Late 2026: AI Takes Some Jobs(15:35) January 2027: Agent-2 Never Finishes Learning(18:20) February 2027: China Steals Agent-2(21:12) March 2027: Algorithmic Breakthroughs(23:58) April 2027: Alignment for Agent-3(27:26) May 2027: National Security(29:50) June 2027: Self-improving AI(31:36) July 2027: The Cheap Remote Worker(34:35) August 2027: The Geopolitics of Superintelligence(40:43) September 2027: Agent-4, the Superhuman AI Researcher--- First published: April 3rd, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TpSFoqoG2M5MAAesg/ai-2027-what-superintelligence-looks-like-1 --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:

With listener insights, we take another look at the film that marked the Marxes' Hollywood debut and stands out as the only one featuring a manicurist we can name. This episode highlights the distinctiveness of Monkey Business, as comments explore how it stands apart from both their earlier work and later films. We'll dive into praise for Thelma Todd and even Zeppo, alongside the random nitpicks Marx fans are famous for. Joe Adamson, Scott Alexander and Eddie Deezen are among those contributing. Jay Hopkins would have as well, if he could figure out how to do it.

Malcolm Collins and his wife Simone are the hosts are (  @SimoneandMalcolm  ). Malcolm is a leading pronatalist, entreprenuer, and a new right intellectual and thought leader. We talk about the birth rate collapse and crisis, artificial intelligence, how to build cultures and religions that can resist this crisis, how to save civilization and whether victory might be possible. We mention Elon Musk, JK Rowling, JD Vance, Robert F Kennedy Jr, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Grimes, Mike Solana, Aaron Renn, Scott Alexander, Hasan Piker, Stephen Colbert, John Fetterman, and more.

Nelson G from “Average Home Theater Reviews” & I are joining forces to discuss our favorite episodes from each season & both movies. In our third episode, we'll discuss 6 episodes from Season 3.Ep1 "Loved to Death" from Tales from the Crypt #25. Directed by Tom Mankiewicz. Written by Joe Minion and John Mankiewicz. Originally aired on June 15, 1991.Aspiring screenwriter Edward Foster (Andrew McCarthy) has a crush on his neighbor, aspiring actress Miranda Singer (Mariel Hemingway). After failing to get Miranda to notice him, Edward finally gains her affection with a potion given to him by his woman-hating landlord (David Hemmings). Eventually, Edward begins to regret his choice after Miranda's newfound obsession with him becomes too much for him to handle. Also starring Kathleen Freeman as the next-door neighbor.Ep2 "Carrion Death" from Shock Suspense Stories #9. Written & directed by Steven E. de Souza. Originally aired on June 15, 1991.Earl Raymond Diggs (Kyle MacLachlan), a murderer who has recently escaped prison, is running for the Mexican border. He is pursued by a state trooper (George DelHoyo) who ends up slapping handcuffs on him. Diggs manages to kill the trooper, but the trooper manages to swallow the key before dying. With no other options to remove the cuffs, Diggs is forced to drag the trooper'sEp3 "The Trap" from Shock Suspense Stories #18. Directed by Michael J. Fox. Written by Scott Alexander. Originally aired on June 15, 1991.Lou Paloma (Bruce McGill), an obnoxious, egotistical, mean-spirited deadbeat who cannot hold down a job, is horribly in debt, and is both unfaithful and abusive (verbally and physically) to his wife, Irene (Teri Garr) ropes her and his brother, Billy (Bruno Kirby), into a plan to fake his own death, collect his life insurance money, and escape to a new life in Rio de Janeiro. Unfortunately, Lou is unaware that both his long-suffering wife and brother, who have developed an attraction to one another, are planning to double-cross him.Ep4 "Abra Cadaver" from Tales from the Crypt #37 (as "Dead Right!"). Directed by Stephen Hopkins. Written by Jim Birge. Originally aired on June 19, 1991.Years ago, Carl Fairbanks (Tony Goldwyn) and his brother Martin (Beau Bridges) were medical students. Carl played a prank on Martin which unexpectedly gave him a stroke and paralyzed one of his hands. In the present day, Carl becomes a successful surgeon whereas Martin's paralysis limits him to a medical research job. Martin gets his revenge by injecting Carl with an experimental serum that stops Carl's heart but keeps his brain alive, essentially trapping Carl in his own body. Note: Based on the story "Dead Right!" renamed for television.Ep7 "The Reluctant Vampire" from The Vault of Horror #20. Directed by Elliot Silverstein. Written by Terry Black. Originally aired on July 10, 1991.Ep13 "Spoiled" from The Haunt of Fear #26. Directed by Andy Wolk. Written by Connie Johnson & Doug Ronning. Originally aired on August 21, 1991.In a meta-layered spoof of daytime soap operas, Janet (Faye Grant), a housewife who is obsessed with the soap opera There's Always Tomorrow and watches the program religiously, is annoyed that her doctor husband, Leon (Alan Rachins), is more obsessed with experimenting on a rabbit than spending time with her. When her TV loses picture at a crucial moment in the show, Janet calls in a cable man named Abel (Anthony LaPaglia), to have cable installed. Inspired by There's Always Tomorrow's no-nonsense main character, Fuschia Monroe (Anita Morris), Janet begins a steamy affair with Abel while Leon is distracted with his work. When Leon catches the two of them in the act, he soon wonders if he could try his experiment on human subjects. Check out Nelson's YouTube Channel at https://youtu.be/gyd0D5sCPYU?si=_jRO4WpXDUC8i01DSupport this podcast at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/fave-five-from-fans/support

Scott Alexander famously warned us to Beware Trivial Inconveniences.When you make a thing easy to do, people often do vastly more of it.When you put up barriers, even highly solvable ones, people often do vastly less.Let us take this seriously, and carefully choose what inconveniences to put where.Let us also take seriously that when AI or other things reduce frictions, or change the relative severity of frictions, various things might break or require adjustment.This applies to all system design, and especially to legal and regulatory questions. Table of Contents Levels of Friction (and Legality).Important Friction Principles.Principle #1: By Default Friction is Bad.Principle #3: Friction Can Be Load Bearing.Insufficient Friction On Antisocial Behaviors Eventually Snowballs.Principle #4: The Best Frictions Are Non-Destructive.Principle #8: The Abundance [...] ---Outline:(00:40) Levels of Friction (and Legality)(02:24) Important Friction Principles(05:01) Principle #1: By Default Friction is Bad(05:23) Principle #3: Friction Can Be Load Bearing(07:09) Insufficient Friction On Antisocial Behaviors Eventually Snowballs(08:33) Principle #4: The Best Frictions Are Non-Destructive(09:01) Principle #8: The Abundance Agenda and Deregulation as Category 1-ification(10:55) Principle #10: Ensure Antisocial Activities Have Higher Friction(11:51) Sports Gambling as Motivating Example of Necessary 2-ness(13:24) On Principle #13: Law Abiding Citizen(14:39) Mundane AI as 2-breaker and Friction Reducer(20:13) What To Do About All ThisThe original text contained 1 image which was described by AI. --- First published: February 10th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xcMngBervaSCgL9cu/levels-of-friction --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

From Martin & Lewis to Abbott & Costello... from Joe Besser to Curly-Joe DeRita... from Tor Johnson to Groucho Marx... one legendary artist has chronicled the greats, near-greats, and semi-greats of show business with a mix of love, tenderness, and liver-spotted frankness. We talk to Drew Friedman about his long career, his favourite subjects, and the new documentary "Drew Friedman: Vermeer of the Borscht Belt." "Drew Friedman: Vermeer of the Borscht Belt" plays in Los Angeles at the Aero Theater on March 29, 7:30pm, followed by a panel discussion featuring Friedman, director Kevin Dougherty, Scott Alexander, Larry Karaszewski, Steven Weber, Dana Gould, KAZ, Leonard Maltin, Kliph Nesteroff, and Merrill Markoe. Get tickets here: https://www.americancinematheque.com/now-showing/drew-friedman-vermeer-of-the-borscht-belt-3-29-25/

It had to happen eventually: this week The Studies Show is all about philosophy. As we look at science in general, how do we decide what those studies are actually showing? Tom and Stuart take a look at the Big Two of philosophy of science: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, with their respective theories of falsificationism and paradigm shifts. Both are theories that almost everyone interested in science has heard of—but both make far more extreme claims than you might think.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to go online for fact-rich, data-dense articles on science and technology, and how they've made the world a better place—or how they might do so in the future. To find all their essays, all for free, go to worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Tom's new book, Everything is Predictable: How Bayes' Remarkable Theorem Explains the World* Wagenmakers's 2020 study asking scientists how they think about scientific claims* David Hume's 1748 Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the problem of induction * Bertrand Russell's 1946 book History of Western Philosophy* Popper's 1959 book The Logic of Scientific Discovery* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Popper* Kuhn's 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Kuhn* 2019 Scott Alexander review of the book* Michael Strevens's 2020 book The Knowledge Machine* Daniel Lakens's Coursera course on “improving your statistical inferences”CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Die drei Elfen der magischen Feinfühligkeit kalauern sich wieder durch diese wundervolle Folge. Es gibt wieder viel zu lernen und zu entdecken. Alle Infos in den Show Notes. Die besten Zaubertricks im Bauchladen der großen und kleinen Wunder: Secret Magic Store.

Scott Alexander Howard: Das andere Tal | Übers.: Anke Caroline Burger | Diogenes Verlag 2024 | Preis: 25 Euro Von der hr2-Partnerbuchhandlung „Büchergilde Buchhandlung & Galerie“ in Wiesbaden

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveLast week's episode dealt with the state of the American Right post-election. Today we ask: Where is the American Left going? How will it respond to Trump? “There is a palpable sense of passivity on the Left,” says Damir Marusic. “What I've seen is resignation or weird, detached analysis,” says Samuel Kimbriel. Is there more going on than we see? We invited WoC contributor Osita Nwanevu, writer for the New Republic and author of an upcoming book about American democracy, to tell us more.Osita begins by distinguishing between the Democratic Party and the movement Left. While the Democrats are a loose coalition in broad disarray, the Left simply stands for “a grand reform of political economy to empower workers.” The Left, Osita argues, was not surprised that Trump won. The problem lies it how it can create a platform that will appeal to American voters. There is too much despair. Too many on the Left, Osita argues, have been left in a state of “political hopelessness” after the election, wondering what to do in a country where most people voted for Donald Trump. But such an attitude is “antithetical to democratic thought and what we need to do for practical politics.”Damir and Osita go on to engage the question of whether a Left that stands for universal human values, rather than in-group, national concerns, is able to win. Osita argues that there is not necessary contradiction between a universal value and a local interest. When it comes to climate change, for example, the Left isn't asking voters to care about “the Maldives,” but about “fires in LA and storms in Florida.” Damir is not so sure. The conversation touches on symbolic politics versus real politics, whether protest movements can actually transform society, whether Trump is the true revolutionary force in American politics, and whether the Left actually has intellectual leaders and a utopian vision today. In our bonus section for paid subscribers, Sam argues that the Left needs an idea of transcendence, Osita talks about transcendence without god, and Damir pushes both on whether personal philosophical convictions actually have any bearing on real-life politics.Required Reading:* Osita's website.* Sam on why the Left needs ideas (WoC).* Damir's post-election reaction (WoC). * Osita on BLM (Pairagraph).* Osita's debate with Oliver Traldi about democracy and ideology (WoC).* Vincent Bevins, If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution (Amazon).* “Nancy Pelosi Insists the Election was Not a Rebuke of the Democrats” (New York Times).* On the Gushers BLM post mentioned by Osita (New York Times).* “Costco Teamsters vote to authorize US-wide strike, union says” (Reuters).* “Costco shareholders just destroyed an anti-DEI push” (CNN).* History of hospitals (Britannica).* Scott Alexander, “Everyone's A Based Post-Christian Vitalist Until The Grooming Gangs Show Up” (Astral Codex Ten).This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Governance and Markets.Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!

BONUS: Gojko Adzic on Optimizing Products for Long-Tail Users (Agile Online Summit 2024 Replay) In this BONUS episode, we revisit Gojko Adzic's insightful interview at the Agile Online Summit 2024. Gojko, an award-winning author and software expert, unpacks the principles behind his latest book, Lizard Optimization, offering a fresh perspective on improving product usability by addressing the needs of long-tail users. From learning from unexpected user behaviors to refining products with a systematic approach, this episode is filled with practical tips for product teams and Agile practitioners. What is Lizard Optimization? Drawing from his experiences as a product developer, Gojko introduces the idea of Lizard Optimization. He discusses how observing unexpected user behaviors led him to refine his SaaS tools like Narakeet and MindMup. By focusing on usability challenges and unusual patterns, he has turned serendipity into actionable insights. “Users aren't stupid—they're just finding creative ways to get value from your product. Listen to them.” Gojko explains the inspiration behind the metaphor of the “Lizardman constant,” a concept from a Scott Alexander blog post. He describes how this principle applies to product optimization: understanding and addressing the 4% of surprising, unexplainable behaviors can uncover opportunities for innovation. “The job isn't to judge users—it's to explore why they're doing what they're doing and how we can help them succeed.” The High-Level Process of Lizard Optimization Gojko outlines the systematic process described in his book to leverage unexpected user behavior: Observe Misuse: Identify how users deviate from expected patterns. Extract Insights: Focus on one unexpected behavior as a signal. Remove Obstacles: Help users achieve their goals more easily. Monitor Impacts: Detect and adjust for unintended consequences. “Start monitoring for the predictable but unexpected—those hidden gems can unlock your next big feature.” Practical Advice for Product Teams For teams ready to apply these concepts, Gojko emphasizes the importance of expanding observability tools to include product metrics and not just technical ones. He shares how tracking unpredictable user actions can inspire impactful changes. “About a third of what we do delivers value—focus on finding where unexpected value lies.” Recommended Resources To dive deeper into these ideas, Gojko recommends: Trustworthy Online Controlled Experiments by Ron Kohavi Evidence Guided by Tim Herbig LizardOptimization.org “Experimentation and evidence-based decision-making are the keys to building better products.” Closing Thoughts: “Look for the Unexpected” Gojko's parting advice for Agile practitioners is simple yet powerful: Look for the unexpected. By embracing surprises in user behavior, teams can transform minor inconveniences into major opportunities for growth. “The unexpected is where innovation begins.” About Gojko Adzic Gojko Adzic is an award-winning author, speaker, and product creator. His books, including Lizard Optimization, Impact Mapping, and Specification by Example, have become essential reads for Agile practitioners and product teams worldwide. Gojko is a 2019 AWS Serverless Hero, the winner of the 2016 European Software Testing Outstanding Achievement Award, and the 2011 Most Influential Agile Testing Professional Award. He has also co-founded several successful SaaS tools, including Narakeet, MindMup, and Votito. You can link with Gojko Adzic on LinkedIn.

Dr. Cruse (@predoctit) argues that Pete Hegseth, Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, is much less likely to get confirmed than the current markets prices indicate. Dr. Cruse and Pratik Chougule also discuss the universe of Republican senators who are willing to vote against Trump nominees. Timestamps 0:00: Pratik introduces episode 0:11: Thune whip count on Hegseth 8:05: Intro ends 10:06: Interview with Cruse begins 10:42: Trump nominees' confirmation prospects 11:24: Democratic Senators 12:11: Rubio 15:44: Most controversial nominees 16:27: Hegseth scandals 31:14: Factors in likelihood of confirmation 33:46: Republican Senators 46:41: Influence of Hegseth markets 46:56: Sexual harrassment allegations Follow Star Spangled Gamblers on Twitter @ssgamblers  Trade on Hegseth's nomination at Polymarket.com, the world's largest prediction market. https://polymarket.com/event/of-senate-votes-to-confirm-hegseth-as-secretary-of-defense?tid=1736804670342 https://polymarket.com/event/which-trump-picks-will-be-confirmed/will-pete-hegseth-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-defense?tid=1736804692254 https://polymarket.com/event/who-will-be-trumps-defense-secretary/will-pete-hegseth-be-trumps-defense-secretary?tid=1736804733018 Join us for our first DC Forecasting & Prediction Markets meetup of the year! This will be a very casual meetup to meet and socialize with others interested in forecasting, prediction markets, political gambling, sports betting, or anything else relating to predicting the future. Location is TBD but you'll be notified when we've finalized a venue. Last-minute/onsite walk-in RSVPs here on this Partiful event page are welcomed! Who are we? We are prediction market traders on Manifold (and other prediction markets like PredictIt, Kalshi, and Polymarket), forecasters (e.g. on Metaculus and Good Judgment Open), sports bettors (e.g. on FanDuel, DraftKings, and other sportsbooks), consumers of forecasting (or related) content (e.g. Star Spangled Gamblers, Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin, Scott Alexander's Astral Codex Ten), effective altruists, rationalists, and data scientists. Forecast on Manifold how many people will attend this month: https://manifold.markets/dglid/how-many-people-will-attend-a-forec-OzPZILyc5C?play=true Forecast on Manifold how many people will attend meetups this year: https://manifold.markets/dglid/how-many-attendees-will-there-be-at?play=true This meetup is hosted by the Forecasting Meetup Network. Help us grow the forecasting community to positively influence the future by supporting us with an upvote, comment, or pledge on Manifund: https://manifund.org/projects/forecasting-meetup-network---washington-dc-pilot-4-meetups Get notified whenever a new meetup is scheduled and learn more about the Forecasting Meetup Network here: https://bit.ly/forecastingmeetupnetwork Join our Discord to connect with others in the community between monthly meetups: https://discord.com/invite/hFn3yukSwv

With the enormous increase in the power of AI (specifically LLMs) people are using them for all sorts of things, hoping to find areas where they're better, or at least cheaper than humans. FiveThirtyNine (get it?) is one such attempt, and they claim that AI can do forecasting better than humans.  Scott Alexander, of Astral Codex Ten, reviewed the service and concluded that they still have a long way to go. I have no doubt that this is the case, but one can imagine that this will not always be the case. What then? My assertion would be that at the point when AI forecasting does “work” (should that ever happen) it will make the problems of superforecasting even worse.2  I- The problems of superforecasting What are the problems of superforecasting? ...

Freddie deBoer has a post on what he calls “the temporal Copernican principle.” He argues we shouldn't expect a singularity, apocalypse, or any other crazy event in our lifetimes. Discussing celebrity transhumanist Yuval Harari, he writes: What I want to say to people like Yuval Harari is this. The modern human species is about 250,000 years old, give or take 50,000 years depending on who you ask. Let's hope that it keeps going for awhile - we'll be conservative and say 50,000 more years of human life. So let's just throw out 300,000 years as the span of human existence, even though it could easily be 500,000 or a million or more. Harari's lifespan, if he's lucky, will probably top out at about 100 years. So: what are the odds that Harari's lifespan overlaps with the most important period in human history, as he believes, given those numbers? That it overlaps with a particularly important period of human history at all? Even if we take the conservative estimate for the length of human existence of 300,000 years, that means Harari's likely lifespan is only about .33% of the entirety of human existence. Isn't assuming that this .33% is somehow particularly special a very bad assumption, just from the basis of probability? And shouldn't we be even more skeptical given that our basic psychology gives us every reason to overestimate the importance of our own time? (I think there might be a math error here - 100 years out of 300,000 is 0.033%, not 0.33% - but this isn't my main objection.) He then condemns a wide range of people, including me, for failing to understand this: Some people who routinely violate the Temporal Copernican Principle include Harari, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Sam Altman, Francis Fukuyama, Elon Musk, Clay Shirky, Tyler Cowen, Matt Yglesias, Tom Friedman, Scott Alexander, every tech company CEO, Ray Kurzweil, Robin Hanson, and many many more. I think they should ask themselves how much of their understanding of the future ultimately stems from a deep-seated need to believe that their times are important because they think they themselves are important, or want to be. I deny misunderstanding this. Freddie is wrong. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-deboer-on-temporal-copernicanism 

GGACP celebrates the 30th anniversary of the classic comedy-drama "Ed Wood" (released September 28, 1994) with this ENCORE of an interview with the film's screenwriters Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski. In this episode, Scott and Larry talk about the Ed Wood-Bela Lugosi relationship, the exuberance of Milos Forman, the bizarro cinema of Rudy Ray Moore and their Eddie Murphy vehicle, “Dolemite is My Name.” Also, Jim Carrey pranks Danny DeVito, Tim Burton befriends Vincent Price, Ray Walston “replaces” Peter Sellers and Scott and Larry remember the late, great Martin Landau. PLUS: Appreciating Robert Morse! The legacy of William Goldman! Mae West seduces 007! The Marx Brothers meet the Master of Disaster! And the boys pick their favorite big-screen biopics! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1999, director Milos Forman reunited with his People Vs. Larry Flynt screenwriters Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski for another biopic of an iconoclast, Man on the Moon. Rebounding from the Oscar snub for The Truman Show, Jim Carrey took on the role of Andy Kaufman and according to history, took it a bit too seriously. The film received … Continue reading "310 – Man on the Moon"

Adam creates a hypnosis session inspired by a book called Rhinoceros Success by Scott Alexander which Adam read over 25 years before. The book uses a rhino as a metaphor for focus, resilience, determination, and massive action-taking - and Adam uses these principles in this original hypnosis session.  Adam's course Hypnotic Wealth can be found here: https://www.adamcox.co.uk/hypnotic-wealth.html  Coming Soon - The Hypnotists's Secret Circle: Adam will soon be launching a new low-cost membership to access his entire hypnosis archive without the intro, outro, and explanation and an exclusive community only for members. In the meantime you can secure a free sleep download here: https://tr.ee/MCuZqKPnEg  Adam Cox is one of the world's most innovative hypnotists and is known for being the hypnotherapist of choice for Celebrities, CEO's and even Royalty. To book a free 30-minute consultation call to consider working with Adam go to: https://go.oncehub.com/AdamCox Adam's rates for hypnotherapy in pounds and US dollars are here: https://www.adamcox.co.uk/hypnotherapist.html  You can contact Adam at adam@adamcox.co.uk Further information on Adam is here: https://linktr.ee/AdamCoxOfficial  Tags: Adam Cox, the hypnotist, NLP, asmr, hypnosis, hypnotherapy, hypnotist, stress, sleep, worry, meditation, guided meditation, hypnotism, anxiety, hypnosis for abundance, hypnosis for business success, hypnosis to feel enthusiastic about business, hypnosis for financial success, wealth hypnosis, abundance hypnosis, manifestation hypnosis, rhino success, rhinoceros success by Scott Alexander, 

Some signs of tech progress are obvious: the moon landing, the internet, the smartphone, and now generative AI. For most of us who live in rich countries, improvements to our day-to-day lives seem to come gradually. We might (might), then, forgive some of those who claim that our society has not progressed, that our lives have not improved, and that a tech-optimist outlook is even naïve.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with economist Noah Smith about pushing the limits in areas like energy technology, how geopolitical threats spur innovation, and why a more fragmented industrial policy might actually be an advantage.Smith is the author of the popular Noahpinion Substack. He was previously an assistant finance professor at Stony Brook University and an economics columnist for Bloomberg Opinion.In This Episode* Recognizing progress (1:43)* Redrawing the boundaries of energy tech (12:39)* Racing China in research (15:59)* Recalling Japanese economic history (20:32)* Regulating AI well (23:49)* Rethinking growth strategy in the EU (26:46)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationRecognizing progress (1:43)Pethokoukis: Noah, welcome to the podcast.Smith: Great to be here!Not to talk about other podcast guests, but I will very briefly — Last year I did one with Marc Andreessen and I asked him just how tech optimistic he was, and he said, “I'm not sure I'm an optimist at all,” that the most reasonable expectation is to expect the future to be like the past, where we have a problem building things in the real world, that some of our best ideas don't necessarily become everything they could be, and I think a perfectly reasonable baseline forecast is that, for all our talk about optimism, and “let's go,” and “let's accelerate,” that none of that happens. Does that sound reasonable to you or are you more optimistic?I'm optimistic. You know, a few years ago we didn't have mRNA vaccines. Now we do. And now we have a magical weight loss drug that will not only make you lose weight, but will solve half your other health problems for reasons we don't even understand yet.So much inflammation.Right. We didn't even have that a few years ago. That did not exist. If you told someone that would exist, they would laugh at you. A magic pill that not only makes you thin, but also just solves all these other health issues: They would laugh at you, Scott Alexander would laugh at you, everyone would laugh at you. Now it's real. That's cool.If you had told someone a few years ago that batteries would be as insanely cheap as they are, they would've been like, “What? No. There's all these reasons why they can't be,” but none of those reasons were true. I remember because they did actually say that, and then batteries got insanely cheap, to the point where now Texas is adding ridiculous amounts of batteries for grid storage. Did I predict that was going to happen? No, that surprised me on the upside. The forecasters keep forecasting sort of a leveling off for things like solar and battery, and they keep being wrong.There's a lot of other things like reusable rockets. Did you think they'd get this good? Did you think we'd have this many satellites in the low-earth orbit?AI just came out of nowhere. Now everyone has this little personal assistant that's intelligent and can tell them stuff. That didn't exist three years ago.So is that, perhaps, growing cluster of technologies, that's not just a short-term thing. Do you think all these technologies — and let's say particularly AI, but the healthcare-related stuff as well — that these taken together are a game-changer? Because people always say, “Boy, our lives 30 years ago didn't look much different than our lives today,” and some people say 40 years ago.But that's wrong!Yes, I do think that is wrong, but that people's perception.When I was a kid, people didn't spend all day looking at a little screen and talking to people around the world through a little screen. Now they do. That's like all they do all day.But they say that those aren't significant, for some reason, they treat that as a kind of a triviality.Like me, you're old enough to remember a thing called “getting bored.” Do you remember that? You'd just sit around and you're like, “Man, I've got nothing to do. I'm bored.” That emotion just doesn't exist anymore — I mean, very fleetingly for some people, but we've banished boredom from the world.Remember “getting lost?” If you walk into that forest, you might get lost? That doesn't happen unless you want to get lost, unless you don't take your phone. But the idea that, “Oh my God, I'm lost! I'm lost!” No, just look at Google Maps and navigate your way back.Being lost and being bored are fundamental human experiences that have been with us for literally millions of years, and now they're just gone in a few years, just gone!Remember when you didn't know what other places looked like? You would think, “Oh, the Matterhorn, that's some mountain in Switzerland, I can only imagine what that looks like.” And then maybe you'd look it up in an encyclopedia and see a picture of it or something. Now you just type it into Google Images, or Street View, or look at YouTube, look at a walking tour or something.Remember not knowing how to fix things? You just had no idea how to fix it. You could try to make it up, but really what you'd do is you'd call someone who was handy with stuff who had this arcane knowledge, and this wizard would fix your cabinet, or your dresser, or whatever, your stereo.Being lost and being bored are fundamental human experiences that have been with us for literally millions of years, and now they're just gone in a few years, just gone!So why does that perception persist? I mean, it's not hard to find people — both of us are probably online too much — who just will say that we've had complete and utter stagnation. I don't believe that, yet that still seems to be the perception, and I don't know if things haven't moved fast enough, if there are particular visions of what today should look like that haven't happened, and people got hung up on the flying-car, space-colony vision, so compared to that, GPS isn't significant, but I think what you have just described, not everybody gets that.Because I think they don't often stop to think about it. People don't often stop to think about how much the world has changed since they were young. It's like a gradual change that you don't notice day-to-day, but that adds up over years. It's like boiling the frog: You don't notice things getting better, just like the frog doesn't notice the water getting hotter.Do you think it's going to get hotter going forward, though? Do you think it's going to boil faster? Do you think that AI is such a powerful technology that it'll be indisputable to everybody that something is happening in the economy, in their everyday lives, and they look a lot different now than they did 10 years ago, and they're going to look a whole lot different 10 years from now?Utility, remember — back to econ class — utility is concave. A utility of wealth, utility of consumption, is concave, which means that if you get 10,000 more dollars of annual income and you're poor, that makes a hell of a lot of difference. That makes a world of difference to you. But if you're rich, it makes no difference to you. And I think that Americans are getting rich to the point where the new things that happen don't necessarily increase our utility as much, simply because utility is concave. That's how things work.In the 20th century, people escaped material poverty. They started out the century with horses and buggies, and wood-burning stoves, and freezing in the winter, and having to repair their own clothes, and having food be super expensive, and having to work 60-hour weeks, 80-hour weeks at some sweatshop, or just some horrible thing, and horrible conditions with coal smoke blackening the skies; and then they ended in nice, clean suburbia with computers and HDTVs —I guess maybe we didn't get those till the 2000s — but anyway, we ended the 20th century so much richer.Basically, material poverty in rich countries was banished except for a very few people with extreme mental health or drug problems. But then for regular people, material want was just banished. That was a huge increment. But if you took the same increment of wealth and did that again in the next century, people wouldn't notice as much. They'd notice a little bit, but they wouldn't notice as much, and I think that it's the concavity of utility that we're really working against here.In the 20th century, people escaped material poverty. They started out the century. . . having to work 60-hour weeks, 80-hour weeks at some sweatshop. . . and then they ended in nice, clean suburbia with computers and HDTVs . . .So is economic growth overrated then? That kind of sounds like economic growth is overrated.Well, no. I don't know that it's overrated. It's good, but I don't know who overrates it. Obviously it's more important for poor countries to grow than for rich countries to grow. Growth is going to make a huge difference to the people of Bangladesh. It's going to be life-changing, just as it was life-changing for us in the 20th century. They're going to have their 20th century now, and that's amazing.And, to some extent, our growth sustains their growth by buying their products; so that helps, and contributing to innovations that help them, those countries will be able to get energy more easily than we were because they're going to have this super-cheap solar power, and batteries, and all this stuff that we didn't have back in the day. They're going to have protections against diseases, against malaria, and dengue fever, and everything. We didn't have those when we were developing, we had to hack our way through the jungle.So growth is great. Growth is great, and it's better for the people in the poor countries than for us because of concavity of utility, but it's still good for us. It's better to be advancing incrementally. It's better to be feeling like things are getting better slowly than to be feeling like things aren't getting better at all.So many things have gotten better, like food. Food has gotten immeasurably better in our society than it was in the '90s. The food you can eat at a regular restaurant is just so much tastier. I don't know if it's more nutritious, but it's so much tastier, and so much more interesting and varied than it was in the '90s, and people who are in their 40s or 50s remember that. And if they stop to think about it, they'll be like, “You know what? That is better.” We don't always stop to remember what the past was. We don't remember what food was like in the '90s — I don't. When I'm going out to a restaurant to eat, I don't think about what a restaurant was like in 1994, when I was a kid. I don't think about that. It just doesn't come to mind. It's been a long time.In Japan I noticed it a lot, because Japan had, honestly, fairly bland and boring food up until about 2010 or so. And then there was just this revolution where they just got the most amazing food. Now Japan is the most amazing place to go eat in the world. Every restaurant's amazing and people don't understand how recent that is. People don't understand how 20 years ago, 25 years ago, it was like an egg in a bowl of rice and sort of bland little fried things. People don't remember how mediocre it was, because how often did they go to Japan back in 2005?It's better to be feeling like things are getting better slowly than to be feeling like things aren't getting better at all.Redrawing the boundaries of energy tech (12:39)Your answer raised several questions: One, you were talking about solar energy and batteries. Is that enough? Is solar and batteries enough? Obviously I read about nuclear power maybe too much, and you see a lot of countries trying to build new reactors, or restart old reactors, or keep old nuclear reactors, but over the long run, do we need any of that other stuff or can it really just be solar and batteries almost entirely?Jesse Jenkins has done a lot of modeling of this and what would be the best solutions. And of course those models change as costs change. As battery costs go down and battery capabilities improve, those models change, and we can do more with solar and batteries without having to get these other things. But the current models that the best modelers are making right now of energy systems, it says that we're probably looking at over half solar and batteries, maybe two thirds, or something like that. And then we'll have a bunch of other solutions: nuclear, wind, geothermal, and then a little bit of gas, we'll probably never completely get rid of it.But then those things will all be kind of marginal solutions because they all have a lot of downsides. Nuclear is very expensive to build and there's not much of a learning curve because it gets built in-place instead of in a factory (unless it's on a submarine nuclear plant, but that's a different thing). And then wind takes too much land, really, and also the learning curve is slower. Geothermal is only certain areas. It's great, but it's only certain areas. And then gas, fossil fuel, whatever.But the point is that those will all be probably part of our mix unless batteries continue to get better past where we even have expected them to. But it's possible they will, because new battery chemistries are always being experimented with, and the question is just: Can we get the production cost cheap enough? We have sodium ion batteries, iron flow batteries, all these other things, and the question is, can we get the cost cheap enough?Fortunately, China has decided that it is going to pour untold amounts of capital and resources and whatever into being the Saudi Arabia of batteries, and they're doing a lot of our work for us on this. They're really pushing forward the envelope. They're trying to scale every single one of these battery chemistries up, and whether or not they succeed, I don't know. They might be wasting capital on a lot of these, or maybe not, but they're trying to do it at a very large scale, and so we could get batteries that are even better than we expect. And in that case, I would say the share of solar and batteries would be even higher than Jesse Jenkins and the other best modelers now predict.But you don't know the future of technology. You don't know whether Moore's Law will stop tomorrow. You don't know these things. You can trace historical curves and forecast them out, and maybe come up with some hand-wavy principles about why this would continue, but ultimately, you don't really know. There's no laws of the universe for technological progress. I wish there were, that'd be cool. But think solar and batteries are on their way to being a majority of our total energy, not just electricity, but total energy.Racing China in research (15:59)Does it concern you, in that scenario, that it's China doing that research? I understand the point about, “Hey, if they want to plow lots of money and lose lots of money,” but, given geopolitical relations, and perhaps more tariffs, or war in the South China Sea, does that concern you that that innovation is happening there?It absolutely does concern me. We don't want to get cut off from our main sources of energy supply. That's why I favor policies like the Inflation Reduction Act. Basically, industrial policy is to say, “Okay, we need some battery manufacturing here, we need some solar panel manufacturing here in the country as a security measure.” Politicians always sell it in terms of, “We created this many jobs.” I don't care. We can create jobs anyway. Anything we do will create jobs. I don't care about creating specific kinds of jobs. It is just a political marketing tactic: “Green jobs, yes!” Okay, cool, cool. Maybe you can market it that way, good for you.But what I do care about is what you talked about, which is the strategic aspect of it. I want to have some of that manufacturing in the country, even if it's a little inefficient. I don't want to sacrifice everything at the altar of a few points of GDP, or a few tenths of a percent of points of GDP at most, honestly. Or sacrifice everything in the altar of perfect efficiency. Obviously the strategic considerations are important, but, that said, what China's doing with all this investment is it's improving the state of technology, and then we can just copy that. That's what they did to us for decades and decades. We invented the stuff, and then they would just copy it. We can do that on batteries: They invent the stuff, we will copy it, and that's cool. It means they're doing some of our work, just the way we did a lot of their work to develop all this technology that they somehow begged, borrowed, or stole.. . . what China's doing with all this investment is it's improving the state of technology, and then we can just copy that. That's what they did to us for decades and decades. We invented the stuff, and then they would just copy it. We can do that on batteries. . .The original question I asked about: Why should we think the future will be different than the recent past? Why should we think that, in the future, America will spend more on research? Why do we think that perhaps we'll look at some of the regulations that make it hard to do things? Why would any of that change?And to me, the most compelling reason is, it's quite simple just to say, “Well, what about China? Do you want to lose this race to China? Do you want China to have this technology? Do you want them to be the leaders in AI?” And that sort of geopolitical consideration, to me, ends up being a simple but yet very persuasive argument if you're trying to argue for things which very loosely might be called “pro-progress” or “pro-abundance” or what have you.I don't want to whip up any international conflict in order to stimulate people to embrace progress for national security concerns. That wouldn't be worth it, that's like wagging the dog. But, given that international conflict has found us — we didn't want it, but given the fact that it found us — we should do what we did during the Cold War, during World War II, even during the Civil War, and use that problem to push progress forward.If you look at when the United States has really spent a lot of money on research, has built a lot of infrastructure, has done all the things we now retrospectively associate with progress, it was for international competition. We built the interstates as part of the Cold War. We funded the modern university system as part of the Cold War. And a lot of these things, the NIH [National Institutes of Health], and the NSF [National Science Foundation], and all these things, of course those came from World War II programs, sort of crash-research programs during and just before World War II. And then, in the Civil War, of course, we built the railroads.So, like it or not, that's how these things have gotten done. So now that we see that China and Russia have just decided, “Okay, we don't like American power, we want to diminish these guys in whatever way we can,” that's a threat to us, and we have to respond to that threat, or else just exceed to the loss of wealth and freedom that would come with China getting to do what it wants to us. I don't think we should exceed to that.I don't want to whip up any international conflict in order to stimulate people to embrace progress. . . But, given that international conflict has found us. . . we should do what we did during the Cold War, during World War II, even during the Civil War, and use that problem to push progress forward.Recalling Japanese economic history (20:32)You write a lot about Japan. What is the thing you find that most people misunderstand about the last 30 years of Japanese economic history? I think the popular version is: Boom, in the '80s, they looked like they were ahead in all these technologies, they had this huge property bubble, the economy slowed down, and they've been in a funk ever since — the lost decades. I think that might be the popular economic history. How accurate is that?I would say that there was one lost decade, the '90s, during which they had a very protracted slowdown, they ameliorated many of the effects of it, but they were very slow to get rid of the root cause of it, which was bad bank debts and a broken banking system. Eventually, they mostly cleaned it up in the 2000s, and then growth resumed. By the time per capita growth resumed, by the time productivity growth and all that resumed, Japan was aging very, very rapidly, more rapidly than any country has ever aged in the world, and that masked much of the increase in GDP per worker. So Japan was increasing its GDP per worker in the 2000s, but it was aging so fast that you couldn't really see it. It looked like another lost decade, but what was really happening is aging.And now, with fertility falling all around the world right now in the wake of the pandemic, probably from some sort of effect of social media, smartphones, new technology, whatever, I don't know why, but fertility's falling everywhere — again, it looked like it had bottomed out, and then now it's falling again. We're all headed for what happened to Japan, and I think what people need to understand is that that's our future. What happened to Japan in the 2000s where they were able to increase productivity, but living standards stagnated because there were more and more old people to take care of. That is something that we need to expect to happen to us, because it is. And, of course, immigration can allay that somewhat, and it will, and it should. And so we're not because of immigrationWill it in this country? In this country, the United States, it seems like that should be something, a major advantage going forward, but it seems like it's an advantage we seem eager to throw away.Well, I don't know about eager to throw away, but I think it is in danger. Obviously, dumb policies can wreck a country at any time. There's no country whose economy and whose progress cannot be wrecked by dumb policies. There's no country that's dumb-proof, it doesn't exist, and it can't exist. And so if we turn off immigration, we're in trouble. Maybe that's trouble that people are willing to accept if people buy the Trumpist idea that immigrants are polluting our culture, and bringing all kinds of social ills, and eating the pets, and whatever the hell, if people buy that and they elect Trump and Trump cracks down hard on immigration, it will be a massive own-goal from America. It will be a self-inflicted wound, and I really hope that doesn't happen, but it could happen. It could happen to the best of us.There's no country whose economy and whose progress cannot be wrecked by dumb policies. There's no country that's dumb-proof, it doesn't exist, and it can't exist.Regulating AI well (23:49)Do you think what we're seeing now with AI, do you think it is an important enough technology that it is almost impossible, realistically, to screw it up through a bad regulation, through a regulatory bill in California, or something on the national level? When you look at what's going on, that if it's really as important as what perhaps the most bullish technologists think it is, it's going to happen, it's going to change businesses, it's going to change our lives, and unless you somehow try to prohibit the entire use of the technology, there's going to be an Age of AI?Do people like me worry too much about regulation?I can't say, actually. This is not something I'm really an expert on, the potential impact of regulation on AI. I would never underestimate the Europeans' ability to block new technologies from being used, they seem to be very, very good at it, but I don't think we'll completely block it, it could hamper it. I would say that this is just one that I don't know.But I will say, I do think what's going to happen is that AI capabilities will outrun use cases for AI, and there will be a bust relatively soon, where people find out that they built so many data centers that, temporarily, no one needs them because people haven't figured out what to do with AI that's worth paying a lot of money for. And I have thoughts on why people haven't thought of those things yet, but I'll get to that in a second. But I think that eventually you'll have one of those Gartner Hype Cycles where eventually we figure out what to do with it, and then those data centers that we built at that time become useful. Like, “Oh, we have all these GPUs [graphics processing units] sitting around from that big bust a few years ago,” and then it starts accelerating again.So I predict that that will happen, and I think that during the bust, people will say, just like they did after the Dot-com bust, people will say, “Oh, AI was a fake. It was all a mirage. It was all useless. Look at this wasted investment. The tech bros have lied to us. Where's your future now?” And it's just because excitement about capabilities outruns end-use cases, not all the time, obviously not every technology obeys this cycle, for sure . . . but then many do, you can see this happen a lot. You can see this happen with the internet. You can see this happen with railroads, and electricity. A lot of these things, you've seen this pattern. I think this will happen with AI. I think that there's going to be a bust and everyone's going to say, “AI sucks!” and then five, six years later, they'll say, “Oh, actually AI is pretty good,” when someone builds the Google of AI.Rethinking growth strategy in the EU (26:46)To me, this always gets a lot of good attention on social media, if you compare the US and Europe and you say, the US, it's richer, or we have all the technology companies, or we're leading in all the technology areas, and we can kind of gloat over Europe. But then I think, well, that's kind of bad. We should want Europe to be better, especially if you think we are engaged in this geopolitical competition with these authoritarian countries. We should want another big region of liberal democracy and market capitalism to be successful.Can Europe turn it around? Mario Draghi just put out this big competitiveness report, things Europe can do, they need to be more like America in this way or that way. Can Europe become like a high-productivity region?In general, European elites' answer to all their problems is “more Europe,” more centralization, make Europe more like a country. . . But I think that Europe's strength is really in fragmentation . . .I think it can. I wrote a post about this today, actually, about Mario Draghi's report. My bet for what Europe would have to do is actually very different than what the European elites think they have to do. In general, European elites' answer to all their problems is “more Europe,” more centralization, make Europe more like a country. You know, Europe has a history of international competition. France, and Germany, and the UK, and all these powers would fight each other. That's their history. And for hundreds of years, it's very difficult to change that mindset, and Mario Draghi's report is written entirely in terms of competitiveness. And so I think the mindset now is “Okay, now there's these really big countries that we're competing with: America, China, whatever. We need to get bigger so we're a big country too.” And so the idea is to centralize so that Europe can be one big country competing with the other big countries.But I think that Europe's strength is really in fragmentation, the way that some European countries experiment with different institutions, different policies. You've seen, for example, the Scandinavian countries, by and large, have very pro-business policies combined with very strong welfare states. That's a combination you don't see that in Italy, France, and Germany. In Italy, France, and Germany, you see policies that specifically restrict a lot of what business can do, who you can hire and fire, blah, blah, blah. Sweden, and Denmark, and Finland, and Norway make it very easy for businesses to do anything they want to do, and then they just redistribute. It's what we in America might even call “neoliberalism.”Then they have very high taxes and they provide healthcare and blah, blah, and then they basically encourage businesses to do business-y things. And Sweden is more entrepreneurial than America. Sweden has more billionaires per capita, more unicorns per capita, more high-growth startups per capita than America does. And so many people fall into the lazy trap of thinking of this in terms of cultural essentialism: “The Swedes, they're just an entrepreneurial bunch of Vikings,” or something. But then I think you should look at those pro-business policies.Europeans should use Sweden as a laboratory, use Denmark, use Norway. Look at these countries that are about as rich as the United States and have higher quality of life by some metrics. Look at these places and don't just assume that the Swedes have some magic sauce that nobody else has, that Italy and Greece and Spain have nothing to learn from Sweden and from Denmark. So I think Europe should use its fragmentation.Also, individual countries in Europe can compete with their own local industrial policies. Draghi talks about the need to have a Europe-wide industrial policy to combat the industrial policies of China and America, but, often, when you see the most effective industrial policy regimes, they're often fragmented.So for example, China until around 2006, didn't really have a national industrial policy at all. At the national level, all they did was basically Milton Friedman stuff, they just privatized and deregulated. That's what they did. And then all the industrial policy was at the provincial and city levels. They went all out to build infrastructure, to attract FDI [foreign direct investment], to train workers, all the kinds of things like that. They did all these industrial policies at the local level that were very effective, and they all competed with each other, because whichever provincial officials got the highest growth rate, you'd get promoted, and so they were competing with each other.Now, obviously, you don't want to go for growth at the expense of anything else. Obviously you'd want to have things like the environment, and equality, and all those things, especially in Europe, it's a rich country, they don't just want to go for growth, growth, growth only. But if you did something like that where you gave the member states of the EU more latitude to do their local policies and to set their local regulations of things like the internet and AI, and then you use them as laboratories and copy and try to disseminate best practice, so that if Sweden figures something out, Greece can do it too, I think that would play to Europe's strength, because Draghi can write a million reports, but Europe is never going to become the “United States of Europe.” Its history and ethno-nationalism is too fragmented. You'll just break it apart if you try.The European elites will just keep grousing, “We need more Europe! More Europe!” but they won't get it. They'll get marginally more, a little bit more. Instead, they should consider playing to Europe's natural strengths and using the interstate competitive effects, and also laboratory effects like policy experimentation, to create a new development strategy, something a little bit different than what they're thinking now. So that's my instinct of what they should do.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Micro Reads▶ Business/ Economics* Behind OpenAI's Audacious Plan to Make A.I. Flow Like Electricity - NYT* OpenAI Pitched White House on Unprecedented Data Center Buildout - Bberg* OpenAI Executives Exit as C.E.O. Works to Make the Company For-Profit - NYT* OpenAI to Become For-Profit Company - WSJ* Mark Zuckerberg's AI Vision Makes Metaverse a Slightly Easier Sell - WSJ* Intel's Foundry Shake-Up Doesn't Go Far Enough - WSJ* OpenAI CTO Mira Murati Is Leaving the Company - Wired* Meta unveils augmented reality glasses prototype ‘Orion' - FT▶ Policy/Politics* The Schumer Permitting Exception for Semiconductors - WSJ Opinion* Biden breaks with environmentalists, House Dems on chip bill - Politico* Mark Zuckerberg Is Done With Politics - NYT▶ AI/Digital* I Built a Chatbot to Replace Me. It Went a Little Wild. - WSJ* Meta's answer to ChatGPT is AI that sounds like John Cena or Judi Dench - Wapo* Want AI that flags hateful content? Build it. - MIT* The Celebrities Lending Their Voices to Meta's New AI - WSJ▶ Biotech/Health* Why do obesity drugs seem to treat so many other ailments? - Nature* Antimicrobial resistance is dangerous in more ways than one - FT Opinion* Who's Really Keeping Ozempic and Wegovy Prices So High? - Bberg Opinion▶ Clean Energy/Climate* Microsoft's Three Mile Island Deal Is Great News - Bberg Opinion* China's accelerating green transition - FT* Microsoft's Three Mile Island Deal Isn't a Nuclear Revival — Yet - Bberg Opinion* A Faster, Cheaper Way to Double Power Line Capacity - Spectrum* A Public Path to Building a Star on Earth - Issues▶ Space/Transportation* Hypersonic Weapons — Who Has Them and Why It Matters - Bberg▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* Trump Offers Scare Tactics on Housing. Harris Has a Plan. - Bberg Opinion* The Sun Will Destroy the Earth One Day, Right? Maybe Not. - NYT* How supply chain superheroes have kept world trade flowing - FT Opinion* Can machines be more ‘truthful' than humans? - FT Opinion▶ Substacks/Newsletters* America's supply chains are a disaster waiting to happen - Noahpinion* The OpenAI Pastiche Edition - Hyperdimensional* The Ideas Anticommons - Risk & Progress* Sam Altman Pitches Utopian impact of AI while Accepting UAE Oil Money Funding - AI Supremacy* The Government's War on Starter Homes - The Dispatch* NEPA Nightmares III: The Surry-Skiffes Creek-Whealton Transmission Line - Breakthrough Journal* Dean Ball on AI regulation, "hard tech," and the philosophy of Michael Oakeshott - Virginia's NewsletterFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

What do lizards have to do with product growth? In this episode, Gojko Adzic reveals how unusual user behaviors can unlock massive opportunities for product innovation. Discover the four steps to mastering "Lizard Optimization" and learn how you can turn strange user actions into game-changing insights. Overview In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, host Brian Milner chats with Gojko Adzic about his new book, Lizard Optimization. Gojko explains the concept of finding product growth signals in strange user behaviors, sharing examples where unexpected user actions led to product breakthroughs. He outlines a four-step process for optimizing products by learning, zeroing in, removing obstacles, and double-checking. Gojko also discusses helpful tools like session recorders and observability tools that can enhance product development by uncovering and addressing unique user behaviors. References and resources mentioned in the show: Gojko Adzic 50% OFF Lizard Optimization by Gojko Adzic Mismatch: How Inclusion Shapes Design by Kat Holmes Trustworthy Online Experiments by Ron Kohavi Advanced Certified Scrum Product Owner® Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast Join the Agile Mentors Community Want to get involved? This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input. Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one. Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com This episode’s presenters are: Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work. Gojko Adzic is an award-winning software consultant and author, specializing in agile and lean quality improvement, with expertise in impact mapping, agile testing, and behavior-driven development. A frequent speaker at global software conferences, Gojko is also a co-creator of MindMup and Narakeet, and has helped companies worldwide enhance their software delivery, from large financial institutions to innovative startups. Auto-generated Transcript: Brian (00:00) Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today, very special guest we have with us. have Mr. Goiko Atshich with us. I hope I said that correctly. Did I say it correctly? Close enough. Okay. Well, welcome in, Goiko. Glad to have you here. Gojko (00:15) Close enough, close enough. Brian (00:21) Very, very, very happy to have Goiko with us. If you're not familiar with Goiko's name, you probably are familiar with some of his work. One of the things I was telling him that we teach in our advanced product owner class every time is impact mapping, which is a tool that Goiko has written about and kind of come up with on his own as well. Gojko (00:21) Thank you very much for inviting me. Brian (00:47) But today we're having him on because he has a new book coming out called Lizard Optimization, Unlock Product Growth by Engaging Long Tail Users. And I really wanted to talk to him about that and help him explain, have him explain to us a little bit about this idea, this new concept that his new book is about. So, Goiko, let's talk about it. Lizard Optimization, in a nutshell, what do you mean by that? What is it? Gojko (01:14) We're going to jump into that, but I just need to correct one of the things you said. I think it's very, very important. You said I came up with impact mapping and I didn't. I just wrote a popular book about that. And it's very important to credit people who actually came up with that. It's kind of the in -use design agency in Sweden. And I think, you know, they should get the credit for it. I literally just wrote a popular book. Brian (01:19) Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha, gotcha. Apologies for that incorrect. Thank you for making that correction. So lizard optimization. Gojko (01:44) So, lizard optimization. Good. So, lizard optimization is an idea to find signals for product ideas and product development ideas in strange user behaviors. When you meet somebody who does something you completely do not understand, why on earth somebody would do something like that? Brian (02:03) Okay. Gojko (02:11) and it looks like it's not done by humans, it looks like it's done by somebody who follows their own lizard logic, using stuff like that as signals to improve our products. Not just for lizards, but for everybody. So the idea came from a very explosive growth phase for one of the products I'm working on, where it... had lots of people doing crazy things I could never figure out why they were doing it. For example, one of the things the tool does is it helps people create videos from PowerPoints. You put some kind of your voiceover in the speaker notes, the tool creates a video by using text to speech engines to create voiceover from the speaker notes, aligns everything and it's all kind of for you. People kept creating blank videos and paying me for this. I was thinking about why on earth would somebody be creating blank videos and it must be a bug and if it's a bug then they want their money back and they'll complain. So I chased up a few of these people and I tried to kind of understand what's going on because I originally thought we have a bug in the development pipeline for the videos. So... I started asking like, you know, I'm using some, I don't know, Google slides or, you know, keynote or whatever to produce PowerPoints. Maybe there's a bug how we read that. And the person, no, no, we, know, official Microsoft PowerPoint. They said, well, can you please open the PowerPoint you uploaded? Do you see anything on the slides when you open it? And the person, no, it's blank. Right? Okay, so it's blank for you as well. I said, yeah. So. Brian (03:48) Yeah. Gojko (03:54) What's going on? so what I've done is through UX interviews and iterating with users and research, we've made it very, very easy to do advanced configuration on text -to -speech. And it was so much easier than the alternative things that people were creating blank PowerPoints just to use the text -to -speech engines so they can then extract the audio track from it. Brian (03:54) Yeah, why? Gojko (04:23) and then use that and it was this whole mess of obstacles I was putting in front of people to get the good audio. It wasn't the original intention of the tool. It wasn't the original value, but people were getting unintended value from it. And then I ended up building just a very simple screen for people to upload the Word document instead of PowerPoints. And it was much faster for users to do that. A month later, there was many audio files being built as videos. Two months later, audio... production overtook video production. then at the moment, people are building many, many more audio files than video files on the platform. So it was an incredible growth because of this kind of crazy insight of what people were doing. kind of usually, at least kind of in the products I worked on before, when you have somebody abusing the product, product management fight against it. There's a wonderful story about this in... Founders at work a book by Jessica Livingston and she talks about this kind of group of super smart people in late 90s who Came up with a very very efficient Cryptography algorithm and a way to compute the cryptography so they can run it on low -power devices like Paul pilots Paul pilots were you know like mobile phones, but in late 90s and Then they had to figure out, how do we monetize this? Why would anybody want to do this? So they came up with the idea to do money transfer pumping, Palm pilots, you know, why not? And kind of the built a website. This was the late nineties as a way of just demoing this software to people who didn't have a Palm pilot device next to them. The idea was that you'd kind of see it on the website, learn about it, then maybe download the Palm pilot app and use it in anger. People kept just using the website, they're not downloading the Palm Pilot app. So the product management really wasn't happy. And they were trying to push people from the website to the Palm Pilot app. were trying to, they were fighting against people using this for money transfer on the web and even prohibiting them from using the logo and advertising it. They had this whole thing where nobody could explain why users were using the website because it was a demo thing. It was not finished. It was not sexy. It was just silly. And Jessica kind of talks to one of these people who insists that it was totally inexplicable. Nobody could understand it. But then a bit later, they realized that the website had one and half million users and that the Pongpilot app had 12 ,000 users. So they kind of decided, well, that's where the product is really. And that's like today, people know them as PayPal. They're one of the biggest payment processes in the world because kind of, you know, they realized this is where the product is going. And I think in many, many companies, people Brian (07:03) Ha ha. Gojko (07:18) stumble upon these things as happy accidents. And I think there's a lot more to it. We can deliberately optimize products by looking for unintended usage and not fighting it, just not fighting it. just understand this is what people are getting as value. And I think for me as a solo product founder and developer and product manager on it, One of the really interesting things is when you have somebody engaging with your product in an unexpected way, most of the difficult work for that user is already done. That person knows about you, they're on your website or they're using your product, the marketing and acquisition work is done. But something's preventing them from achieving their goals or they're achieving some value that you did not really know that they're going to achieve. you know, that's something the product can do to help them and remove these obstacles to success. So that's kind of what lizard optimization is making this process more systematic rather than relying on happy accidents. And by making it more systematic, then we can help product management not fight it and skip this whole phase of trying to fight against our users and claim that users are stupid or non -technical or... They don't understand the product, but they're trying to figure out, well, that's what the real goals are. And then following that. Brian (08:47) That's awesome. So the pivot, right? The pivot from here's what we thought our problem was we were solving to now here's what we're actually solving and we should organize around this actual problem, right? Gojko (09:02) or here's what we're going to solve additionally. This is the problem we've solved, but hey, there's this problem as well. And then the product can grow by solving multiple problems for people and solving related problems and solving it for different groups of people, for example. And that's the really interesting thing because I think if you have a product that's already doing something well for your users and a subset of them are misusing it in some way, then kind of... Brian (09:04) Yeah. Gojko (09:30) The product might already be optimized for the majority of users, but there might be a new market somewhere else. So there might be a different market where we can help kind of a different group of users and then the product can grow. Brian (09:43) Yeah, I like to focus on the user. There's an exercise that we'll do in one of our product owner classes where we have a fake product that is a smart refrigerator. And one of the exercises we try to get them to brainstorm the different kinds of users that they might have for it. And one of the things that always comes out in that class is as they're going through and trying to describe the types of users, they inevitably hit to this crossroads where they start to decide Well, yes, we're thinking of this as a home product, something for people to use in their homes. But then the idea crosses their mind, well, what about commercial kitchens? What about people who might use this in another setting? And it's always an interesting conversation to say, well, now you've got a strategic choice to make, because you can target both. You can target one. You can say, we're ignoring the other and we're only going in this direction. So to me, I think that's kind of one of the interesting crossroad points is to say, how do I know when it's time to not just say, great, we have this other customer segment that we didn't know about, but actually we should start to pivot towards that customer segment and start to really target them. Gojko (11:03) Yeah, think that's a fundamental question of product development, isn't it? Do you keep true to your vision even if it's not coming out or if something else is there that's kind more important than I think? For me, there's a couple of aspects to that. One is, laser focus is really important to launch a product. You can't launch a product by targeting... the whole market and targeting a niche type, figuring out, you know, user personas, figuring out like really, really, this is the product who we think the product, this is the group who we think the product is for and giving them a hundred percent of what they need is much better than giving 2 % to everybody because then the product is irrelevant. But then to grow the product, we need to kind of grow the user base as well. And I think one of the things that... is interesting to look at and this comes from a book called Lean Analytics. It's one of my kind of favorite product management books is to look at the frequency and urgency of usage. If you have a group that's kind of using your product, a subgroup that's using your product very frequently compared to everybody else, that might be kind of the place where you want to go. The more frequently, the more urgently people reach for your product when they have this problem. the more likely they are going to be a good market for it. with kind of another product that I've launched in 2013, we originally thought it's going to be a product for professional users. And we aimed at the professional users. And then we found that a subcategory that we didn't really expect, were kind of teachers and children in schools. we're using it a lot more frequently than professional users. And then we started simplifying the user interface significantly so that it can be used by children. And it's a very, very popular tool in schools now. We are not fighting against other professional tools. We were kind of really one of the first in the education market there. And it's still a very popular tool in the education market because we figured a subgroup that's using it very frequently. Brian (13:14) Hmm. Yeah, that's awesome. How do you know when, you know, what kind of threshold do you look for to determine that, this is, because, you know, in your book, you're talking about, you know, behaviors that are not normal, right? People using your product in a way that you didn't anticipate. And what kind of threshold do you look for to that says, hey, it's worth investigating this? You know, I've got this percentage or this number of people who are using it in this strange way. At what point do you chase that down? Gojko (13:49) I think it's wrong to look at the percentages there. I think it's wrong to look at the percentages because then you get into the game of trying to justify economically helping 0 .1 % of the users. And that's never going to happen because what I like about this is an idea from Microsoft's Inclusive Design and the work of Kat Holmes who wrote a book called Mismatch on Brian (13:52) Okay. Gojko (14:17) assistive technologies and inclusive design for disabled people. And she talks about how it's never ever ever going to be economically justified to optimize a product to help certain disabilities because there's just not enough of them. And there's a lovely example from Microsoft where, Microsoft Inclusive Design Handbook where they talk about three types of, Brian (14:34) Yeah. Gojko (14:44) disabilities, one are permanent. So you have like people without an arm or something like that. And I'm going to kind of throw some numbers out now, order of magnitude stuff. I have these details in the book and there's kind of the micro -inclusive design handbook. Let's say at the moment, the 16 ,000 people in the U .S. without one arm or with a disabled arm. And then you have these kind of situational disabilities where because of an occupation like you have a bartender who needs to carry something all the time or a worker who does it, one arm is not available and they only have one arm to work on and this temporary like a mother carrying a child or something like that. So the other two groups are order of magnitude 20 -30 million. We're not, by making the software work well with one hand, we're not helping 16 ,000 people, we are helping 50 million people. But you don't know that you're helping 50 million people if you're just thinking about like 16 ,000. I think they have this kind of, one of the key ideas of inclusive design is solve for one, kind of help, design for one, but solve for many. So we are actually helping many, many people there. So think when you figure out that somebody is doing something really strange with your product, you're not helping just that one person. Brian (15:45) Right, right. Hmm. Gojko (16:13) you're helping a whole class of your users by making the software better, removing the obstacles to success. this is where I, you know, going back to the PowerPoint thing I mentioned, once we started removing obstacles for people to build the audios quickly, lots of other people started using the product and people started using the product in a different way. And I think this is a lovely example of what Bruce Torazzini talks about is the complexity paradox because He's a famous UX designer and he talks about how once you give people a product, their behavior changes as a result of having the product. So the UX research we've done before there is a product or there is a feature is not completely relevant, but it's a changed context because he talks about people have a certain amount of time to do a task. And then when they have a tool to complete the task faster, they can take on a more complicated task or they can take on an additional task or do something else. I think removing obstacles to use a success is really important. Not because we're helping 0 .1 % of people who we don't understand, but because we can then improve the product for everybody. And I think that's kind of the magic of lizard optimization in a sense, where if we find these things where somebody's really getting stuck. but if we help them not get stuck, then other people will use the product in a much better way. And I think this is, know, the name lizard optimization comes from this article by Scott Alexander, who talks about the lizard man's constant in research. And the article talks about his experiences with a survey that combined some demographic and psychological data. So they were looking at where you live and what your nationality is and what gender you are and then how you respond to certain psychological questions. he said, like there's about 4 % of the answers they could not account for. And one person wrote American is gender. Several people listed Martian as nationality and things like that. some of these, he says some of these things will be people who didn't really understand the question. they were distracted, they were doing something else, or they understood the question but they filled in the wrong box because, know, the thick thumbs and small screens, or they were kind of malicious and just, you know, wanted to see what happens. when you kind of add these people together, they're not an insignificant group. kind of, he says 4%. And if... we can help these people, at least some of these people, and say reduce churn by 1%. That can compound growth. Reducing churn, keeping people around for longer is an incredible way to kind of unlock growth. going back to what we were talking about, some people might be getting stuck because they don't understand the instructions. Some people might be getting stuck because they're using the product in a way you didn't expect. And some people might just like not have the mental capacity to use it the way you expected them to be used. But if we can help these people along, then normal users can use it much, easier. And you mentioned a smart fridge. I still remember there was this one wonderful bug report we had for my other product, which is a collaboration tool. we had a bug report a while ago. that the software doesn't work when it's loaded on a fridge. And it's like, well, it was never intended to be loaded on a fridge. I have no idea how you loaded it on a fridge. It's a mind mapping diagramming tool. It's intended to be used on large screens. Where does a fridge come in? And then we started talking to this person. This was before the whole kind of COVID and work from home disaster. The user was a busy mother and she was kind of trying to collaborate with her colleagues while making breakfast. breakfast for kids and kind of running around the kitchen she wasn't able to kind of pay attention to the laptop or a phone but her fridge had a screen so she loaded the software on the fridge and was able to kind of pay attention to collaboration there and you know we of course didn't optimize the software to run on fridges that's ridiculous but we realized that some people will be using it without a keyboard and without a mouse and then we kind of restructured the toolbar, we made it so that you can use it on devices that don't have a keyboard and then the whole tablet thing exploded and now you get completely different users that don't have keyboards and things like that. I think that's where I think is looking at percentages is a losing game because then you start saying, but 0 .1 % of people use this. But yeah, I think lizard optimization is about using these signals to improve the products for everybody. Brian (21:30) That's a great example. I love that example because you're absolutely right. You're not trying to necessarily solve that one problem because you don't anticipate there's going to be a lot of people who are going to want to run that software on a fridge. However, the takeaway you had from that of, we can do this for people who don't have a keyboard or a mouse. There's another way that they might operate this that could apply to lots of different devices and lots of different scenarios. Now we're talking about a much bigger audience. Now we're talking about opening this up to larger segments of the population. I love that. I think that's a great example. I know you talk about that there's kind of a process for this. Help us understand. You don't have to give away the whole candy story here from the book, but help us kind of understand in broad, terms what kind of process people follow to try to chase these things down. Gojko (22:26) So there's like a four step process that's crystallized for me. And the book is kind of more as a, like a proposal or a process. It's something that works for me and I'm hoping that other people will try it out like that. So it might not necessarily stay like that in a few years if we talk again. And I've narrowed it down to four steps and kind of the four steps start with letters L, Z, R and D. Lizard. And it's kind of so learn how people are misusing your products, zero in on one area, on one behavior change you want to improve, then remove obstacles to use a success and then double check that what you've done actually created the impact you expected to make. I think kind of when we look at people who follow their own logic or people who follow some lizard logic you don't really understand, by definition they're doing something strange. your idea of helping them might not necessarily be effective or it might not go all the way or it might. So double checking at the end that people are actually now doing what you expect them to do or doing something better is really, really, really important. And then using signals from that to improve the kind of feedback loop is critical. I had this one case where people were getting stuck on a payment format entering tax details and The form was reasonably well explained. There was an example in the forum how to enter your tax ID and people were constantly getting stuck. A small percentage of people was getting stuck on it. However, I don't want to lose a small percentage of people that want to pay me on the payment form. So I thought, well, how about if I remove that field from there? I speed it up for everybody and then I can guide them later into entering the tax details to generate an invoice. I thought that was a brilliant idea. tested it with a few users. Everybody loved it, so I released it. And then a week later, I realized that, yes, I've sold it for the people that were getting confused, but I've ended up confusing a totally different group of people that expects the tax fields there. So the net effect was negative. then I went back to the original form. so there's lots of these things where people don't necessarily behave the way you think they will. Brian (24:38) Hahaha. Gojko (24:48) Ron Kohavi has a wonderful book about that called Trustworthy Online Experiments. And he has data from Slack, from Microsoft, from Booking .com and... The numbers are depressive. on one hand, the numbers range from 10 to 30, 40 % success rate for people's ideas. And if leading companies like that do things that don't pan out two thirds of the time, then we have to be honest building our products and say, well, maybe this idea is going to work out, maybe not. Brian (25:03) Hahaha. Wow. Gojko (25:30) the more experimental the population is, the more risky that is. think monitoring and capturing weird user behaviors, capturing errors helps you understand that people are getting stuck. as you said, you don't want to follow everybody. There's going to be a lot of noise there. We need to extract signals from the noise. That's what the second step is about, focusing on one specific thing we want to improve. Then, try to remove obstacles and then double -checking that we've actually removed them. That's the four steps. And there's like a shorter version of all the four steps. It's easier to remember. It's listen alert, zooming, rescue them, and then double check at the end. that's again, LZRD. Brian (26:13) That's awesome. Yeah, I love the process and I love the kind of steps there. Are there tools that you recommend for this that are easier to try to determine these things or chase them down or are there tools that you find are more helpful? Gojko (26:32) So there's lots of tools today for things like A -B testing and looking at experiments and things that are very helpful to do this scale. And it's kind of especially useful for the last step. In terms of kind of focusing and things like that, the five stages of growth from the linear analytics are a good tool. Impact mapping is a good tool. Kind of any focusing product management technique that says, well, these are the business goals we're working on now, or these are the kind of user goals we're working on now. out of, know, 50 lizards we found last week, these three lizards seem to be kind of in that area. And for the first step, spotting when people are getting stuck, there's a bunch of tools that are interesting, like session recorders for web products. There's one from Microsoft called Clarity that's free. There's another called Full Story that's quite expensive. There's a couple of open source one, one is packaged within Matomo analytics application. There's a bunch of these other things. Any kind of observability or monitoring tool is also very useful for this because we can spot when people are getting stuck. One of the things I found particularly helpful is logging all user errors. When a user does something to cause an error condition in a product, the product of course tells them like, know, an error happened. But then... logging it and analyzing that information in the back is really critical. for something like that, people sometimes use web analytics tools or any kind of product analytics. I think what's going to be interesting in the next couple of years, and I think if people start doing this more, is we'll see. more like these technical exception analytics tracking tools mixed with this because most of the product analytics are showing people what they expect to see, not what they don't expect to see. And I'll just give you an example of this way. was really helpful. So I've mentioned the screen where people can upload the Word documents. Occasionally people would select weird file types. So they'll select images, they'll select, I don't know, what else. Brian (28:31) Yeah. Gojko (28:49) Sometimes I guess that's a result of, know, a fat finger press or somebody not selecting the right thing. I have a not insignificant percentage of users every day that try to upload Android package files into a text -to -speech reader. Android package files and application files, I don't know what the right way is to read out an Android application. My best guess is people are doing that. as a, you know, these things where you drop a USB in front of an office and somebody kind of mistakenly plugs it in. So maybe they're hoping that I'll know the Android application on my phone just because they've uploaded it. I don't know, but a small percentage of users was trying to upload files that had SRT and VTT extensions, which are subtitle files. And they were not supported, but Brian (29:31) Yeah. Gojko (29:45) I kept getting information that people are uploading those types of files. And then I said, well, this is interesting because it's a text to speech system. People are uploading subtitle files, there's text in, so why don't I just ignore the timestamps and read the text? I can do that. And I started supporting that. And then some people started complaining that, well, the voice is reading it slower than the subtitles. I said, well, yes, because... Brian (30:11) Ha Gojko (30:12) You know, you're uploading subtitles that were read by an actor in a movie. This is a voice that's reading it at their speed. And then we started talking and it turns out that these people were doing it for corporate educational videos where they have a video in English, they need it in French, German, Spanish and all the else, but they don't want to kind of re -edit the video. They just want an alternate audio track. Okay, I mean, I have the timestamps, we can speed up or slow down the audio, it's not a big deal. And we've done that and this was one of the most profitable features ever. Like a very small percentage of the users need it, but those that need it produce hundreds of thousands of audio files because they translate the corporate training videos. And now, you know, we're getting into that numbers game. If I said, you know, there's like 0 .1 % of people are uploading subtitle files. Brian (30:58) Yeah. Gojko (31:07) then it doesn't matter. if we start thinking about, this is potentially interesting use case, it creates growth on its own because then people find you. And I think my product was the first that was actually doing synchronous subtitles. Competitors are doing it now as well. But it opened the massive, massive market for us. And people, you know, I got there by monitoring user errors, by, you know, the fact that somebody uploaded a file that had an unsupported extension. That was our insight. Brian (31:38) Wow, that's really cool. That's a great story. This is fascinating stuff. And it makes me want to dive deeper into the book and read through it again. But I really appreciate you coming on and sharing this with us, Goiko. This is good stuff. Again, the book is called, Lizard Optimization, Unlock Product Growth by Engaging Long Tail Users. And if I'm right, we talked about this a little bit before. We're going to offer a discount to to the listeners, Gojko (32:07) Yes, we will give you a listen as a 50 % discount on the ebook. the ebook is available from Lean Pub. If you get it from the discount URL that I'll give you, then you'll get a 50 % discount immediately. Brian (32:24) Awesome. So we'll put that in our show notes. If you're interested in that, you can find the show notes. That's a great deal, 50 % off the book and it's good stuff. well, I just, I can't thank you enough. Thanks for making time and coming on and talking this through your book. Gojko (32:40) Thank you, it was lovely to chat to you.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Results of an informal survey on AI grantmaking, published by Scott Alexander on August 21, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I asked readers of my blog with experience in AI alignment (and especially AI grantmaking) to fill out a survey about how they valued different goods. I got 61 responses. I disqualified 11 for various reasons, mostly failing the comprehension check question at the beginning, and kept 50. Because I didn't have a good way to represent the value of "a" dollar for people who might have very different amounts of money managed, I instead asked people to value things in terms of a base unit - a program like MATS graduating one extra technical alignment researcher (at the center, not the margin). So for example, someone might say that "creating" a new AI journalist was worth "creating" two new technical alignment researchers, or vice versa. One of the goods that I asked people to value was $1 million going to a smart, value-aligned grantmaker. This provided a sort of researcher-money equivalence, which turned out to be $125,000 per researcher on median. I rounded to $100,000 and put this in an experimental second set of columns, but the median comes from a wide range of estimates and there are some reasons not to trust it. The results are below. You can see the exact questions and assumptions that respondents were asked to make here. Many people commented that there were ambiguities, additional assumptions needed, or that they were very unsure, so I don't recommend using this as anything other than a very rough starting point. I tried separating responses by policy vs. technical experience, or weighting them by respondent's level of experience/respect/my personal trust in them, but neither of these changed the answers enough to be interesting. You can find the raw data (minus names and potentially identifying comments) here. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

This week, I'm honored to be joined by not one but two brilliant screenwriters, Larry Karaszewski & Daniel Waters. Larry Karaszewski & his writing/directing/producing partner Scott Alexander are best known for writing unusual true stories such as the films ED WOOD, THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT, MAN ON THE MOON, AUTO FOCUS, BIG EYES, DOLEMITE IS MY NAME, & the hit television miniseries THE PEOPLE VS. OJ SIMPSON: AMERICAN CRIME STORY. The team has won Emmys, Golden Globes, Producers, & Writers Guild Awards. Additionally, Larry is also a former Governor & Vice President of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences. Born in Ohio & raised in Indiana, Daniel Waters is the Edgar award-winning screenwriter of the 1988 cult classic HEATHERS starring Winona Ryder & Christian Slater. Additionally, the man who wrote or co-wrote the films BATMAN RETURNS, HUDSON HAWK, THE ADVENTURES OF FORD FAIRLANE, DEMOLITION MAN, & more, he's also the writer-director of HAPPY CAMPERS & SEX & DEATH 101. Best friends & movie buddies since their teenage years in Indiana, in the fourth season of Watch With Jen, the two joined me to dissect the films of director Michael Ritchie, & this year, they're back to take us on another trip through the films of the 1970s, courtesy of actor Jan-Michael Vincent whose luscious blonde hair & laid back approach made him one of the most popular up-and-coming stars of the era. Although initially, we agreed on five films, including BUSTER & BILLIE, THE MECHANIC, WHITE LINE FEVER, THE WORLD'S GREATEST ATHLETE, & VIGILANTE FORCE, Larry & Dan made it their mission to do as much extra credit as possible, watching everything from obscure TV movies like TRIBES & SANDCASTLES to bigger hits like HOOPER & more. Along the way, we discuss Dan's issues with JMV in the '70s & this dream (or nightmare) he had where I ruined the vibe of his party, Larry's decision to watch two JMV movies on the ceiling under laughing gas at the dentist, & much, much more. What can I say? This conversation is a journey - a rollicking, thoughtful, & very engaging journey - & you're sure to love it.Originally Posted on Patreon (8/20/24) here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/110417546Theme Music: Solo Acoustic Guitar by Jason Shaw, Free Music Archive Shop Watch With Jen logo Merchandise in Logo Designer Kate Gabrielle's Threadless ShopDonate to the Pod via Ko-fi

“Seek not the paths of the ancients. Seek that which the ancients sought.”  –Matsuo Basho, The Rustic Gate   This week, host Cyrus Palizban introduces Hocwyn Tipwex, Harvard grad and co-founder of Uqbar. Our conversation delves into the philosophy behind ancient and modern learning, the value of pseudonymous intellectual discourse, and the impact of small, tightly-knit intellectual communities. We discuss the shortcomings and potential reforms for the current educational system, the importance of critical thinking, and how emerging peer-to-peer technologies like Urbit could influence future societal structures.   00:00 Introduction and Welcome 00:28 Hocwyn's Background and Name Origin 02:46 The Philosophy of Names and Identity 05:29 Anonymous Intellectual Traditions 05:58 Revolutionary America and Pseudonymous Debates 10:14 Intellectual Networks and Small Communities 13:42 The Value of Ancient Wisdom 21:38 Challenges in Modern Education 27:55 The Universal Problem of Education 28:32 Self-Guided Learning: An Alternative Approach 29:08 The Role of Public School Teachers 29:25 Scott Alexander's Insights on School Spending 30:12 The Ineffectiveness of Educational Interventions 30:27 The Cultural Fragmentation in Education 30:56 The Harsh Reality of Teacher Impact 31:38 Radical Changes Needed in Education 32:36 The Issue of Universal Public Education 33:38 Aggressive Tracking and Teacher Specialization 35:13 The Boredom Problem in Schools 36:52 The Potential of a Teacher Distribution System 37:20 The Concept of Teaching as a Temporary Vocation 38:30 The East Asian Education Model 40:07 The Challenge of Tenure and Teacher Accountability 44:05 The Role of Technology in Decentralized Education 49:16 The Future of Remote Work and Education 49:58 The Impact of Federalism on Education 50:40 The Evolution of Social Networks and Communities 52:18 Concluding Thoughts and Farewell   Follow us on other platforms for more content! https://smartlink2.metricool.com/public/smartlink/lightning-945

Our exit today has us once again trying to kidnap a dog to make our dreams come true. This week, we are talking about Screwed, written and directed by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, and starring Norm McDonald, Dave Chapelle, and Danny DeVito. Along the way, there is lots of talk about screwball comedies and Broadway musicals. Plus, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Larry Flynt, 90s crime shows, William Powell, and the eternal question: why were so many movies of this time about dognapping? Thememusic by Jonworthymusic. Powered by RiversideFM. ⁠⁠⁠⁠CFF Films⁠⁠⁠⁠ with Ross and friends. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Movies We've Covered on the Show⁠⁠⁠⁠ on Letterboxd. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Movies Recommended on the Show⁠⁠⁠⁠ on Letterboxd.

Jessica Kleinschmidt, Chris Townsend, Vince Cotroneo and Johnny Doskow preview the finale of the A's and Astros from the Coliseum. They were joined by Bobby Crosby, Lawrence Butler, Scott Alexander and Tommy White. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Parents, do you have a student heading off to college in the fall? Your tuition and fees are likely due! Listen in to find out more about paying that important bill. You've probably heard of Georgetown, but did you know there are other fine Jesuit colleges in the US? College Coach colleague Nicole Doyle, alumna and former admission officer at the College of Holy Cross in Massachusetts, will be talking about the values that Jesuit schools are known for and the Jesuit college experience. Last, brand new College Coach colleague Scott Alexander, former admission officer at Bates College, will be discussing colleges in and near Portland, Maine. (Be sure to catch our Portland, Oregon colleges episode from last week, July 11th, if you want to hear about both coasts!)

Sick of hearing us shouting about Bayesianism? Well today you're in luck, because this time, someone shouts at us about Bayesianism! Richard Meadows, finance journalist, author, and Ben's secretive podcast paramour, takes us to task. Are we being unfair to the Bayesians? Is Bayesian rationality optimal in theory, and the rest of us are just coping with an uncertain world? Is this why the Bayesian rationalists have so much cultural influence (and money, and fame, and media attention, and ...), and we, ahem, uhhh, don't? Check out Rich's website (https://thedeepdish.org/start), his book Optionality: How to Survive and Thrive in a Volatile World (https://www.amazon.ca/Optionality-Survive-Thrive-Volatile-World/dp/0473545500), and his podcast (https://doyouevenlit.podbean.com/). We discuss The pros of the rationality and EA communities Whether Bayesian epistemology contributes to open-mindedness The fact that evidence doesn't speak for itself The fact that the world doesn't come bundled as discrete chunks of evidence Whether Bayesian epistemology would be "optimal" for Laplace's demon The difference between truth and certainty Vaden's tone issues and why he gets animated about this subject. References Scott's original piece: In continued defense of non-frequentist probabilities (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-non-frequentist) Scott Alexander's post about rootclaim (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim/comments) Our previous episode on Scott's piece: #69 - Contra Scott Alexander on Probability (https://www.incrementspodcast.com/69) Rootclaim (https://www.rootclaim.com/) Ben's blogpost You need a theory for that theory (https://benchugg.com/writing/you-need-a-theory/) Cox's theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_theorem) Aumann's agreement theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem) Vaden's blogposts mentioned in the episode: Critical Rationalism and Bayesian Epistemology (https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2020/vaden_second_response/) Proving Too Much (https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2021/proving_too_much/) Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Follow Rich at @MeadowsRichard Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Help us calibrate our credences and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) What's your favorite theory that is neither true nor useful? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Richard Meadows.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Join the next round of AIM's Grantmaking Program!, published by Andrea (Danny) Folds on July 8, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. TL;DR The next round of AIM's Grantmaking Program kicks off in September. We'll be taking a small cohort of funders and grantmakers through a free 9-week course designed to strengthen your grantmaking skills and network. If you are a funder giving over ~$1M annually and want to increase your impact, get in touch by August 1st to join us. About the program Boiled down to 3 things, we focus on: Strategic thinking: identifying your values and goals; developing an evidence-based approach; and mitigating common biases and logical errors in grantmaking Methodical impact: using tools like cost-effectiveness analyses and weighted factor models to define impact and pursue positive outcomes, irrespective of who benefits from them Engaged community: connecting committed funders so they can learn from each other, better coordinate funding, and network with subject matter experts Program structure Duration: 9 weeks (September 23rd to November 22nd) Format: 8 weeks of interactive online sessions + 1 week in-person in London (October 21-26) Time commitment: 4-6 hours per week, with 1 full-time week in person Cost: free What you will gain Effective strategies: a wide range of grantmaking practices to maximize the effectiveness of your funding Impact assessment skills: tools for tracking and evaluating your impact Sector development insights: ideas for improving philanthropic norms by sharing your learning with others and leveraging your impact by working with others Practical application: an individual final project that applies your new skills to a real-world grantmaking challenge of your choice (e.g., developing a grantmaking strategy for a specific cause area, conducting in-depth research on a promising charity, or collaborating on a joint funding initiative) Why join? Grantmaking is hard, as Scott Alexander summed up in this pretty astute post. To be an effective grantmaker long-term, and not just make a few good grants when the stars align, you need a solid skillset and an engaged community. Whether you're brand new to grantmaking or a seasoned philanthropist looking to hone your skills, our program can offer valuable resources and a supportive network to help you advance your philanthropic goals. It's a flexible course in terms of time demands and workload, and the content can be easily personalized to your individual interests and needs. Schedule a chat to learn more For more information or to explore joining the program, please visit our website or shoot us an email. We're always happy to chat. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Access this entire 93 minute episode (and additional monthly bonus shows) by becoming a Junk Filter patron for only $5.00 (US) a month! Over 30% of episodes are exclusively available to patrons of the show. https://www.patreon.com/posts/172-american-v-o-107059565 In the second half of our discussion about the 2016 FX miniseries American Crime Story: The People v. O.J. Simpson, Karen Geier and I dig into more of the great performances including Sarah Paulson as Marcia Clark, Sterling K. Brown as Christopher Darden, and Courtney B. Vance as Johnnie Cochran, and talk about some of the other highlights of the series, including the possible romance between Clark and Darden the show illustrates, and the episodes about the Bronco chase, the racism of the LAPD and the experiences of the sequestered jury members, and a salute to the other creative forces of the show, producers and showrunners Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, specialists in what they call “anti-biopics”, depicting the lives of people who wouldn't seem worthy of the biopic treatment, with full immersions into these characters and their worlds.  American Crime Story: The People v. O.J. Simpson is available for streaming on Hulu in the United States and Disney+ internationally.  Follow Karen Geier on Twitter.

Is Anxiety a demon? It's a question raised, weirdly, by the most popular kids' movie in America right now--and by the entire practice of modern psycotherapy. Typically, when we try to understand mental illness, we refer to natural causes like brain chemistry or personal and family history. But are there some forms of cognitive disorder that don't originate within us--that invade us from the outside? I'm using sources both ancient and modern to tackle that question today after a listener wrote in with some provocative thoughts. Check out our sponsor, the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/youngheretics/ I maked this: Light of the Mind, Light of the World: https://a.co/d/0fUMLN9f Gateway to the Epicureans: https://a.co/d/03RaCAP5 Subscribe to be in the mailbag: https://rejoiceevermore.substack.com Subscribe to my joint substack with Andrew Klavan (no relation): https://thenewjerusalem.substack.com Scott Alexander's review of Robert Falconer: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-others-within-us?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web  

Chris Townsend was joined by Eno Sarris of the Athletic (1:05), A's Left-Handed Reliever, Scott Alexander (24:45), A's Starting Pitcher, Hogan Harris (34:40), Bay Area Radio Hall of Famer, Marty Lurie to reflect on the life of Willie Mays (46:35), the President of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, Bob Kendrick (1:01:17), Ken Korach (1:15:30) and A's Outfielder, Lawrence Butler (1:39:30). To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After four episodes spent fawning over Scott Alexander's "Non-libertarian FAQ", we turn around and attack the good man instead. In this episode we respond to Scott's piece "In Continued Defense of Non-Frequentist Probabilities", and respond to each of his five arguments defending Bayesian probability. Like moths to a flame, we apparently cannot let the probability subject slide, sorry people. But the good news is that before getting there, you get to here about some therapists and pedophiles (therapeutic pedophelia?). What's the probability that Scott changes his mind based on this episode? We discuss Why we're not defending frequentism as a philosophy The Bayesian interpretation of probability The importance of being explicit about assumptions Why it's insane to think that 50% should mean both "equally likely" and "I have no effing idea". Why Scott's interpretation of probability is crippling our ability to communicate How super are Superforecasters? Marginal versus conditional guarantees (this is exactly as boring as it sounds) How to pronounce Samotsvety and are they Italian or Eastern European or what? References In Continued Defense Of Non-Frequentist Probabilities (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-non-frequentist) Article on superforecasting by Gavin Leech and Misha Yugadin (https://progress.institute/can-policymakers-trust-forecasters/) Essay by Michael Story on superforecasting (https://www.samstack.io/p/five-questions-for-michael-story) Existential risk tournament: Superforecasters vs AI doomers (https://forecastingresearch.org/news/results-from-the-2022-existential-risk-persuasion-tournament) and Ben's blogpost about it (https://benchugg.com/writing/superforecasting/) The Good Judgment Project (https://goodjudgment.com/) Quotes During the pandemic, Dominic Cummings said some of the most useful stuff that he received and circulated in the British government was not forecasting. It was qualitative information explaining the general model of what's going on, which enabled decision-makers to think more clearly about their options for action and the likely consequences. If you're worried about a new disease outbreak, you don't just want a percentage probability estimate about future case numbers, you want an explanation of how the virus is likely to spread, what you can do about it, how you can prevent it. - Michael Story (https://www.samstack.io/p/five-questions-for-michael-story) Is it bad that one term can mean both perfect information (as in 1) and total lack of information (as in 3)? No. This is no different from how we discuss things when we're not using probability. Do vaccines cause autism? No. Does drinking monkey blood cause autism? Also no. My evidence on the vaccines question is dozens of excellent studies, conducted so effectively that we're as sure about this as we are about anything in biology. My evidence on the monkey blood question is that nobody's ever proposed this and it would be weird if it were true. Still, it's perfectly fine to say the single-word answer “no” to both of them to describe where I currently stand. If someone wants to know how much evidence/certainty is behind my “no”, they can ask, and I'll tell them. - SA, Section 2 Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Help us calibrate our credences and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) What's your credence in Bayesianism? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Against the Guardian's hit piece on Manifest, published by Omnizoid on June 20, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Crosspost of this on my blog The Guardian recently released the newest edition in the smear rationalists and effective altruists series, this time targetting the Manifest conference. The piece titled "Sam Bankman-Fried funded a group with racist ties. FTX wants its $5m back," is filled with bizarre factual errors, one of which was so egregious that it merited a connection. It's the standard sort of journalist hitpiece on a group: find a bunch of members saying things that sound bad, and then sneeringly report on that as if that discredits the group. It reports, for example, that Scott Alexander attended the conference, and links to the dishonest New York Times smear piece criticizing Scott, as well as a similar hitpiece calling Robin Hanson creepy. It then smears Razib Khan, on the grounds that he once wrote a piece for magazines that are Paleoconservative and anti-immigration (like around half the country). The charges against Steve Hsu are the most embarrassing - they can't even find something bad that he did, so they just mention half-heartedly that there were protests against him. And it just continues like this - Manifest invited X person who has said a bad thing once, or is friends with a bad person, or has written for some nefarious group. If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend checking out Austin's response. I'm not going to go through and defend each of these people in detail, because I think that's a lame waste of time. I want to make a more meta point: articles like this are embarrassing and people should be ashamed of themselves for writing them. Most people have some problematic views. Corner people in a dark alleyway and start asking them why it's okay to kill animals for food and not people (as I've done many times), and about half the time they'll suggest it would be okay to kill mentally disabled orphans. Ask people about why one would be required to save children from a pond but not to give to effective charities, and a sizeable portion of the time, people will suggest that one wouldn't have an obligation to wade into a pond to save drowning African children. Ask people about population ethics, and people will start rooting for a nuclear holocaust. Many people think their worldview doesn't commit them to anything strange or repugnant. They only have the luxury of thinking this because they haven't thought hard about anything. Inevitably, if one thinks hard about morality - or most topics - in any detail, they'll have to accept all sorts of very unsavory implications. In philosophy, there are all sorts of impossibility proofs, showing that we must give up on at least one of a few widely shared intuitions. Take the accusations against Jonathan Anomaly, for instance. He was smeared for supporting what's known as liberal eugenics - gene editing to make people smarter or make sure they don't get horrible diseases. Why is this supposed to be bad? Sure, it has a nasty word in the name, but what's actually bad about it? A lot of people who think carefully about the subject will come to the same conclusions as Jonathan Anomaly, because there isn't anything objectionable about gene editing to make people better off. If you're a conformist who bases your opinion about so called liberal eugenics ( terrible term for it) on the fact that it's a scary term, you'll find Anomaly's position unreasonable, but if you actually think it through, it's extremely plausible, and is even agreed with by most philosophers. Should philosophy conferences be disbanded because too many philosophers have offensive views? I've elsewhere remarked that cancel culture is a tax on being interesting. Anyone who says a lot of things and isn't completely beholden to social co...

On the June 18 edition of A's Cast Live, our weekly all baseball talk show Monday through Friday, Chris Townsend was joined by A's Broadcaster Johnny Doskow to preview the A's & Royals and Hot Take Tuesday (8:40), A's Left-Handed Reliever, Scott Alexander (32:27), Royals Radio Broadcaster, Jake Eisenberg (42:49) and Eno Sarris of the Athletic (1:02:30). To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Chris Townsend, Johnny Doskow, Jessica Kleinschmidt, and Vince Cotroneo preview game one of the A's and Royals from the Coliseum. They were joined by Scott Alexander, Lawrence Butler, and Mark Kotsay. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week Magnum & Izzo discuss "Moloch Game Theory", an idea that explains why society is completely f***ed in many areas. How do we stop Moloch? Listen and find out. EPISODE 122 OF THE SWERVE PODCAST ↩️

3-Part Episode Part I: Pratik Chougule (@pjchougule), SSG TItle Belt Champ Ben Freeman (@benwfreeman1), and Title Belt Challenger Alex Chan (@ianlazaran) debate whether or not Trump cares about qualifications in his VP decision, or whether it will come down to politics. Part II: Doug Campbell (@tradeandmoney) analyzes how he won the 2023 Astral Codex Ten forecasting competition. Part III: Saul Munn explains how to organize the forecasting community 0:11: Pratik introduces VP segment 0:26: Pratik introduces Campbell segment 1:05: Pratik introduces Munn segment 4:09: VP segment begins 8:43: 2028 considerations 18:13: Campbell segment begins 22:55: Expertise and prediction 28:10: Interview with Munn begins 28:45: The importance of in-person events 29:00: Manifest's origins 30:46: The political gambling community 32:11: Transitioning from an online community 34:04: How to organize the forecasting community 36:05: University clubs 37:06: Reluctance to organize events 38:15: EA Global 40:59: Low bar to community-building Bet on who Trump will select as his running mate at Polymarket, the world's largest prediction market, at polymarket.com. SUPPORT US: Patreon: www.patreon.com/starspangledgamblers FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL: Twitter: www.twitter.com/ssgamblers 

Chris Townsend, Ken Korach, Vince Cotroneo and Jessica Kleinschmidt preview game two of the A's and Mariners from the Coliseum. They were joined by Scott Emerson, Sean Newcomb, Scott Alexander and Kristopher Negrón. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-others-within-us The Others Within Us: Internal Family Systems, Porous Mind, and Spirit Possession Amazon Associates Link https://amzn.to/4bnt4dg Roy Clousers Worldview examples from Math 17 Christian Philosophy : Examples from Math https://youtu.be/zunkQ4o_4uI?si=2Sm8b6-qDn9r-UIR  @WhiteStoneName  Vision vs Explanation, Terrence Howard, Sheldrake's Morphic Fields (in)Form(ation) https://www.youtube.com/live/iyOORxYtew0?si=VEWnfAriixW6KPrx    Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg Bridges of Meaning Discord https://discord.gg/JpHtVgXW https://www.meetup.com/sacramento-estuary/ My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Estuary Hub Link https://www.estuaryhub.com/ If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://calendly.com/paulvanderklay/one2one There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333  If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/  All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos.  https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640

This week, in recognition of the death of O.J. Simpson last Wednesday, April 10, we are reaching into the archives of Crime Story Media to present a series of special interviews related to the way that the historical narrative of Simpson's trial for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman has been preserved for posterity.Today, we present Part 2 of Kary Antholis's two-part interview with Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander, the creators of the Emmy and Golden Globe winning limited series The People vs. O.J. Simpson.During Part Two of the conversation we take a deep dive into the issues that arose during the writing and production processes of The People vs. O.J. Simpson, and then Scott and Larry field questions from the students in the class. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, in recognition of the death of O.J. Simpson last Wednesday, April 10, we are reaching into the archives of Crime Story Media to present a series of special interviews related to the way that the historical narrative of Simpson's trial for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman has been preserved for posterity.Today, we present part 1 of Kary Antholis's two-part interview with Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander, the creators of the Emmy and Golden Globe winning limited series The People vs. O.J. Simpson.During Part One of our conversation we discussed how they met, their development as storytellers, the evolution of their partnership, how they became known as the “kings of the anti-bio pic,” how they came to write The People v. O.J. Simpson, the writing process on the series, and we began a discussion of how the production itself came together. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We have several programming notes for our Podcast.First, we are going to pause our coverage of the trial of Alex Murdaugh for the next seven weeks.Second, this week, beginning with today's episode, in recognition of the death of O.J. Simpson last Wednesday, April 10, we are reaching into the archives of Crime Story Media to present a series of special interviews related to the way that the historical narrative of Simpson's trial for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman has been preserved for posterity.We begin today with Kary Antholis's exclusive interview with Bill Hodgman who had oversight responsibilities for the team prosecuting O.J. Simpson: Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden. That interview was conducted on January 24, 2020, the 25th Anniversary of the beginning of Oral Arguments in the trial.On Tuesday and Wednesday, we present Kary's two-part interview with Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander, the creators of the Emmy and Golden Globe winning limited series The People vs. O.J. Simpson.And on Thursday and Friday, we present Kary's two-part interview with Ezra Edelman the producer and director of the Oscar and Emmy winning documentary epic, O.J.: Made In America.And finally, as you know, this Jury Duty Podcast began by covering the LA trial of Robert Durst for the murder of his friend Susan Berman.Over the course of three years we have published more than 150 episodes covering the trial, both before and after the pandemic, including extensive interviews, with the lead prosecutor on the case, two of the trial's jurors, and Charlie Bagli, a reporter who had covered the Durst family for decades.As you may know, The Jinx 2 — a six part documentary series sequel to The Jinx about the LA trial of Robert Durst — premieres on the Max streaming service on April 21. In parallel with that broadcast, we are scheduling a special event for Season 10 of the Jury Duty podcast.For each of the six weeks of The Jinx 2 series we will re-release four of our favorite episodes about the Durst trial from the Jury Duty feed… for a total of 24 episodes.The first episode of Jury Duty: The Durst Trial's Greatest Hits will drop on April 22.Now on to the first episode of our Jury Duty Special, The Legacy of the OJ Trial. Here's Kary Antholis's January 24, 2020 interview with former LA Assistant District Attorney Bill Hodgman. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S20 Ep11: In which we travel "The Other Valley" with Scott Alexander Howard Transcript "I wrote it in a blissful who cares? Mentality, like, 'oh, well, genre will sort itself out.'" - Scott Alexander Howard In this episode, we're joined by Scott Alexander Howard, author of The Other Valley, a novel where literary meets speculative. Scott delves into his journey from philosophy to fiction, sharing how his background influenced the emotional depth of his debut. We discuss the challenges of genre and the slow dance of publishing. Links: Scott Alexander Howard The Other Valley Elena Ferrante Ted Chiang Virginia Woolf Yoko Ogawa Marilynne Robinson Jenny Erpenbeck Martin McInnes Evergreen Links Like the podcast? Get the book! I Should Be Writing book. My newsletter, The Hot Mic, and my Patreon. Supporting either of those will get you perks like access to the discord, exclusive content, and early, ad-free episodes. Socials: Bluesky, Mastodon, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Focusmate. Theme by John Anealio Savor I Should Be Writing tea blends Support local book stores! Station Eternity, Six Wakes, Solo: A Star Wars Story: Expanded Edition and more! OR Get signed books from my friendly local store, Flyleaf Books! (go here for all the books mentioned in 2024) "The Landscape of Grief with Scott Alexander Howard"  is brought to you in large part by by my supporters, who received an early, expanded version of this episode. You can join our Fabulist community with a pledge on Patreon or Substack! Some of the links above may be affiliate, allowing you to support the show at no extra cost to you. Also consider leaving a review for ISBW, please! CREDITS Theme song by John Anealio, art by Numbers Ninja,and files hosted by Libsyn (affiliate link). Get archives of the show via Patreon. April 12, 2024 | Season 20 Ep 11 | murverse.com "The Landscape of Grief with Scott Alexander Howard" by Mur Lafferty is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Shane Jacob is the founder of The Horsemanship Journey, seamlessly blending personal development with horsemanship. The Horsemanship Journey, under Shane Jacob's guidance, empowers individuals to tap into their internal horsepower. Through this transformative process, people cultivate the confidence and strength necessary to overcome perceived weaknesses, shaping themselves into the individuals they aspire to become. Shane Jacob is a Certified Life Coach, Professional Horseman, Entrepreneur, and Author. In another facet of his life, feelings of inadequacy during young adulthood led Shane to engage in excessive alcohol consumption. This destructive pattern culminated in a tragic DUI accident and subsequent incarceration, intensifying his sense of unworthiness. Enduring decades in an alcoholic haze, Shane grappled with the consequences, witnessing the erosion of relationships, earnings, and personal growth. At the age of 47, Shane, with the aid of horses and guided by a higher power, broke free from this destructive cycle. The processes and principles employed during this transformative journey are accessible to all and adaptable to any desired change. For those seeking transformation, Shane emphasizes that change is not only within reach but also achievable and undeniably worthwhile. Every individual is worth the journey to positive change. Listen & Subscribe on: iTunes / Stitcher / Podbean / Overcast / Spotify Contact Info Website: www.TheHorsemanshipJourney.com Podcast: The Horsemanship Journey Podcast launching 03/24 Most Influential Person My dad Effect On Emotions You know, I have learned through mindfulness, from being aware of what's going on with me, not to be so afraid of emotions. Some of them don't feel good. A lot of times, we connect positivity with courage. Let me tell you something. It doesn't feel very good. Fear really doesn't feel so bad and I've come to know this by being mindful and by being aware. Thoughts On Breathing I'm not an expert on breathing, but I have read a little bit about Navy Seal breathing. My wife's really into that. Before I speak, I do some serious breathing because I have a real issue with public speaking.   And it's still not the simplest thing for me to stand up in front of an audience and speak.   Bullying Story Horses don't speak very good English. I've never met one that does and so communication can be a barrier with horses. We all do our best. However it is a relationship and a lot of times we lose our patience and a lot of times people can be unfair with horses.   We can be operating on our emotions and we can look back and have regret. I'm going to call that bullyimg because it happens a lot. The thing that I've observed is if I've tried to improve communication and not operate on emotion myself, in all aspects solely as a decision-maker. When I observed horses when it comes to what I perceived as as somebody had been unfair to a horse, I'm going to call that bullying. They didn't come right back and turn the other cheek and say hey, give me another beating.   They had a boundary. They were like, Well. I'm not going to do that again because you know there was a problem there. Suggested Resources Book: The Greatest Salesman in the World by OG Mandino Book: Rhinoceros Success: The Secret to Charging Full Speed toward Every Opportunity by Scott Alexander and Lampo Press Book: Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill App: Google Calendar Related Episodes How Horses and Mindfulness Lead to Trust and Communication; Debbie Roberts-Loucks The Upside of Downsizing; Matt Paxton Lasting Happiness Secrets With TM Hoy Are you experiencing anxiety and stress? I'm Bruce Langford, a practicing coach, and hypnotist who helps fast-track people like you to shed their inner bully and confidently move forward. Book a Free Coaching Session to get you on the road to a more satisfying life, feeling grounded and focused. Email me at bruce@mindfulnessmode.com with ‘I Am Determined' in the subject line. We'll schedule a call to discuss how you can move forward to a better life.