I love how this is the hill we're dying on.

New week, new problem.

https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/a-moral-problem/

That's a subjective value judgement from your point of view.

If you intend it to be more than that, you would have to explain why others shouldn't see it as off-putting.

Otherwise, I don't see how it contributes to the discussion other than "there's at least one person out there who thinks masculinity isn't off putting", which we already know, there's billions of examples.

Any computable intelligence can be considered scaled-up human intelligence, because humans are smart enough to follow arbitrary programs, just very slowly. Since many organizations can do a lot more than what a normal person can reasonably accomplish in a lifetime, I think it is appropriate to call them superintelligence.

It's disrespectful to people who don't have any food to eat, much less play with. Food is important, and this fact is easily forgotten.

The SSC article about omega-6 surplus causing criminality brought to my attention the physiological aspect of mental health, and health in general. Up until now, I prioritized mind over body. I've been ignoring the whole "eat well" thing because 1) it's hard, 2) I didn't know how important it was and 3) there's a LOT of bullshit literature. But since I want to live a long life and I don't want my stomach screwing with my head, the reasonable thing to do would be to read up. I need book (or any other format, really) recommendations on nutrition 101. Something practical, the do's and don'ts of food and research citations to back it up. On a broader note, I want to learn more about biodeterminism, also from a practical perspective. There might be conditions in my environment causing me issues that I don't even know of. It goes beyond nutrition.

Of course, the there is a game theoretic reason to shoot the messenger. The whole point of doing so is to burn a bridge. The original meaning of the term is:

Originally in military sense of intentionally cutting off one's own retreat (burning a bridge one has crossed) to commit oneself to a course of action

Ancient battles, and probably to large extend in modern battles as well, were won or lost on moral. When a large part of your army panicked and ran your side was almost certain to loose. Furthermore, whoever was the last to run would be the first one killed when the enemy overran your position. Thus, if you were afraid the soldier next you would run, you were likely to run as well. Burning the bridge behind you was one way to resolve the game theoretic dilemma. Running cannot save your life, so you might as well hold the line.

Metaphorically burning a bridge by killing the messenger serves the same purpose. By publicly killing Sauron's messenger Aragorn is reassuring his allies that he's not going to betray them by cutting a deal with Sauron that leaves them out to dry.

And the winner is

you use words in a careless and imprecise manner

(The pot calls the kettle black.) Natural languages like English are informal. Some ambiguity can't be helped. We do the best we can and ask clarifying questions. Was there a question in there?

guaranteed to be no empirical differences

Assuming Omega's near-omniscience, we just found one! Omega can reliably predict the outcome of a quantum coin flip in a Copenhagen Universe, (since he knows the future), but can't "predict" which branch we'll end up in given a Many Worlds Multiverse, since we'll be in both. (He knows the futures, but it doesn't help.)

So let's not assume that. Now we can both agree Omega is unrealistic, and only useful as a limiting case for real-world predictors. Since we know there's no empirical difference between interpretations, it follows that any physical approximation of near-omniscience can't predict the outcome of quantum coin flips. My strategy still works.

spherical cows [...] vacuum

An interesting rhetorical tactic. I suggest you're being simplistic, and you respond not by showing that you weren't being, nor by admitting that you were being, but by ... well, I'm not sure, actually. I suppose you're making fun of the idea that anyone might think your earlier comments were simplistic. That's certainly easier than showing that they weren't or that they were right to be, and easier on the ego than admitting they were.

Are you familiar with Popehat?

Yup. And with the pony trope more generally, which I think Ken got from someone at Crooked Timber, who of course got it from Calvin and Hobbes. But laughing at something is not actually the same thing as demonstrating that it deserves only laughing at.

where no one has much in the way of coercive powers

Gosh, if only there were non-market mechanisms other than coercion. ... I'm getting a funny sense of deja vu here; how about you?

It's possible to provide someone useful help by giving them information about their weaknesses but still be treated negatively as a result.

Telling someone to use more deodorant when they are smelly is useful help. The person might still hate you for it even if they actually use more deodorant as a result.

The social act of offering help also has an emotional aspect. A shy person can estimate that they could provide help and care about providing help and still not offer to help as a result of their shyness.