The “Real World Risk Institute” — RWRI — is Nassim Taleb’s answer to the question of what his Incerto would look like if it were a course. The twentieth workshop starts on July 7 and lasts for 2 weeks. This is what I wrote on that other site in response to the announcement:

Strongly endorse. Took the first one in July 2020 and if it weren’t for it I’d still be a federal employee on a visa. It’s not the knowledge you get (you have the Inecrto (sic!) for that), it’s the thinking

And I meant every misspelled word. Go if you have time: scholarships are available, math is not required.

My Kind of Conservatism:

Meanwhile the old-guard Democrats are holding solemn press conferences, still wearing suits and pantsuits, standing behind podiums to speak to the rolling cameras of television networks. They are ghosts addressing ghosts. “Sure, it’s not 1985 now,” Homer Simpson once said, when Marge tried to throw out his old calendars, “but you never know what the future might bring.” This is the message we are currently getting from Chuck Schumer and the others.

“Ghosts addressing ghosts” applies to more than just politicians speaking on mainstream media.

I have a rarely-updated list of articles I look at once a week, and randomly pick one to re-read. This week it was time for the first one on the list, which is Paul Graham’s Life is Short. I have obviously been ignoring it, likely because of its position, because I haven’t been following the sage advice:

The usual way to avoid being taken by surprise by something is to be consciously aware of it. Back when life was more precarious, people used to be aware of death to a degree that would now seem a bit morbid. I’m not sure why, but it doesn’t seem the right answer to be constantly reminding oneself of the grim reaper hovering at everyone’s shoulder. Perhaps a better solution is to look at the problem from the other end. Cultivate a habit of impatience about the things you most want to do. Don’t wait before climbing that mountain or writing that book or visiting your mother. You don’t need to be constantly reminding yourself why you shouldn’t wait. Just don’t wait.

In 2023 there was an exhibit of Leonardo DaVinci’s sketches in D.C., three blocks away from me. But I didn’t see it, because one thing or other kept getting in the way until the very last day, which was so packed with meetings that the work ended after the last admission time.

Lesson learned, right? Well, no, because just recently there was another big show close by (I won’t tell how close lest I allow your, reader, to triangulate my home address). This time we did go, only to balk at the overly long lines and go see something else at the National Art Gallery (incidentally, a work of Leonardo’s). Which was good! But then picking the time when we wouldn’t need to wait was impossible, and we never got to see that exhibit either.

So yes don’t wait, and also when you read and re-read an essay try to at least remember the highlights. This is a memo to self not advice, but could serve as one.

From a theology-focused review of Indika — a game which is now on my to-play list — in Cluny Journal:

Although games are curated experiences, a player generally has far more agency in their virtual inhabitation than audiences when they are being jerked around or held in place by a director, author or painter.

At first I misread this paragraph and thought it implied there is more agency in games than even in real life — being constrained by norms, traditions, etc — which also doesn’t seem to be too far off from the truth.

Today’s Slow Boring update started off great (the Home Alone house!), then came this whopper of a reasoning flaw and I stopped reading in frustration.

You can’t make any conclusions out of junk data, people, though apparently you can write a 5,000-word essay.

Much has been written and said about the faults of peer review but one thing I think hasn’t been emphasized enough so I’ll state it here: journal editors need to grow a spine. And they need to grow it in two ways, first by not sending obviously flawed studies out for peer review no matter where they come from, then by saying no to reviewers' unreasonable demands, not taking their comments at face value, and sometimes just not waiting 6+ months for a review to come back before making a decision.

A thought for the year, from the aforementioned Prof. Taleb:

Likewise, I don’t read letters and emails longer than a postcard. Writing must have some solemnity. Reading and writing, in the past, were the province of the sacred.

From How I Write, to which I have linked before. Good essays much like good books are worth re-rereading.

For all the hate X gets, you can still find nuggets of good information, Nassim Taleb and the Taleb-adjacent being a prime example. Here is one such post, from Juani Villarejo, shown here in its entirety for those who would rather not go to X to see the original:

Parkinson’s law says that work expands to fill the available time.

Jevons’s paradox states that every increased efficiency, will raise demand rather than decrease it.

And there is a work asymmetry:
Probably there are many more things you dislike doing than things you like.

Conclusion: If you allocate time to work, all the time will be filled with tasks to do.

If you make your work more efficient, your time will be filled with more tasks (demands increases).

But by the asymmetry, tasks you dislike doing have more chance to appear than tasks you like.

So when you make your work more efficient your time will always tend to be filled with more tasks you dislike doing.

Corollary: Never ever efficientize (sic!) the things you like doing. Take all the time and enjoy them slowly. They also serve as a defense wall against the things you dislike.

The links and emphasis are mine. For all its pretenses to the contrary X is still a horrible platform for anything longer than 300 or so characters and does not allow for hyperlinks.

Here are a few links to start off 2025 (see if you can spot a pattern):

• Things we learned about LLMs in 2024 (ᔥDaring Fireball)
• The new Turing test for AI video… is absolutely horrifying (ᔥMR)
• The Ghosts in the Machine
• On skilled immigration

Happy New Year, dear reader!

An article from Matt Maldre about skipping to the popular parts of a YouTube video caught my eye:

Take this two-hour animation of a candy corn ablaze in a fireplace. This cute video is a simple loop that goes over and over. Certainly, in two hours, there’s got to be sort of Easter egg that happens, right? Maybe Santa comes down the chimney.

Roll over the Engagement Graph, and you’ll see some spikes.

I checked out the spikes. Nothing different happens. It’s the same loop. It’s just people clicking the same spikes that other people did because other people clicked it.

Because humans are humans and nature is nature. Now how many fields of science are made of people analyzing, explaining, narrating and writing millions upon millions of words about an equivalent of these spikes? Microbiome for sure. Much of genetics as currently practiced. Anything that relies on principle component analysis. What else?