I know there's a cold-start problem for adding a new competitor to dating apps, but I wish one would show up. Maybe I'm naive, but I think I would like this. To be fair, I think Hinge is already pretty good. Not sure why it feels so much better than Tinder.
Just to call out, you're implicitly assuming that strictly lower divorce rates is the correct end-goal. This may not be what you really want, eg you might find many abusive pairings where the weaker partner is too scared to leave. In the style of "The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero" [1], I'll claim that the optimal amount of divorce is non-zero.
The sentiment of the linked post is different than the one you describe. The post is explaining why it's ok to have a non-zero value for a metric seen as objectively bad (like fraud) if there's high confidence that the non-zero value can be traded for a disproportionately larger metric somewhere beneficial (user acquisition).
In this case the undesirable metric is divorce. If the parent comment's feature for measuring marriage lengths and estimating likelihood of divorce were implemented, what disproportionate benefit would allowing more matches with a nonzero likelihood of divorce bring? The app wouldn't be enforcing whether divorces happen, it would just use the estimation of it happening as a matchmaking metric.
> what disproportionate benefit would allowing more matches with a nonzero likelihood of divorce bring
I think one benefit would be the individual participants' self-determination (there may be others). It's ok if you don't find my previous example (abusive relationship) convincing, but in the absence of an objection I'll reuse that. If we could look through all the marriages with a 0% chance of divorce, my bet is that we'd find an abnormally high percentage of abusive relationships. I claim that if a match has _no_ chance of divorce, it probably indicates a lack of self-determination for one of the partners.
Taking a step back, it might be clearer to just argue that length / non-divorce is not what people really want from a marriage. I can't speak for everyone, but I want a happy and fulfilling life, and I seek a partnership to the extent that it supports my desire for a happy and fulfilling life. Yes, I do want the partnership to be long, and I don't want to get divorced. Of course I want my marriage to last forever. But this is not my primary goal in marriage. There are many boring or uninteresting people (apologies to them) who I'm sure I could live with forever, that I'd immediately discard as candidates. Alternatively (making the abuse angle more tangible), I also have a lot of international friends and family that would happily find me an international bride who would never divorce me, and would be happy to marry somebody with a US passport. In fact this is a somewhat common offer, though of course they never say it in those words. You can decide for yourself whether that is abuse, but at least I wouldn't feel comfortable with it.
> I also have a lot of international friends and family that would happily find me an international bride who would never divorce me, and would be happy to marry somebody with a US passport. In fact this is a somewhat common offer, though of course they never say it in those words. You can decide for yourself whether that is abuse, but at least I wouldn't feel comfortable with it.
I'm pretty sure in this specific case, they get an instant green card if abuse happens. So the incentives point in the opposite direction (pro-divorce)
That’s fair, but on the other hand they’re in a new country where they may not speak the language, and know almost nobody. To say nothing of religious/cultural views of divorce
> Were a similarly intense geomagnetic storm to occur today, it would likely seriously damage the electrical power grid, causing widespread outages and blackouts, as well as disrupting satellite communications.
Is this really true? I’m suspicious for a few reasons:
1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
2. While there is a lot more dependence on electrical connections, there’s also many more sources of disturbance now. So I suspect some of the failure modes are tested by “normal” human activity
3. EMI is a known risk, in my previous job we actively tested and built for it. I suppose if the limits are inappropriately set , or if this sort of testing isn’t wide spread, it could still be an issue.
4. As long as there’s a neutral line, i think any common mode should be rejected, in which case this should be fine?
Not sure that I can speak to everything, but I did take a course specifically on space weather + its impacts on Earth and have some context I can maybe share. For your first point, you are correct it is a national security concern. There are standards already in place that aim to address/mitigate potential disruptions from solar storms/ space weather, but the concern is/would be if these standards are sufficient for an extreme event like Carrington or this 1840s example. From a national security perspective, it's also not a risk that comes from an adversary, it's not something Russia/China/Iran/[insert country] can do to us, it's just an environmental consideration, and could happen to anyone (and if any one country is effected in a significant want, it's likely that others would be facing some consequences of the storm as well - especially w.r.t. satellites). From a strategy perspective, it's similar to if an earthquake destroyed the 3 gorges dam - it's obviously a risk but it's categorized a bit differently. It's more about how quickly can you re-establish normal operations rather than how do you fully prevent it. Obviously mitigation is part of that, but it changes where it gets prioritized.
And to segue into your later points, the reason it's unknown if the current standards would be sufficient is because these sort of events, and how they interact with a continent-sized electrical/ transmission systems (the grid), is a pretty complex problem. It's also one that we can't exactly test in a lab or controlled environment beforehand with a super high degree of confidence given the scale that the phenomenon takes place at (the whole planet). EMI testing that occurs for most tech products today isn't super focussed on the currents induced by a solar storm, which are low frequency/quasi-DC/much less predictable (the effects vary geographically and in time-scales/patterns that "typical" EMI/EMC does not).
Some googling lead me to a NOAA doc that says GIC's "quasi-DC ... currents flow through transmission lines and enter/exit the power grid through grounded transformer neutrals" which to me reads that simply having a neutral line isn't sufficient, but I'm not an EE and could be misunderstanding what you're saying and what this doc is speaking to.
The good news is that events like this are relatively rare, confined (generally) to certain parts of the 11-year solar cycle.
> From a national security perspective, it's also not a risk that comes from an adversary, it's not something Russia/China/Iran/[insert country] can do to us...
That's a valid point. I guess in my mind an EMP is an act of aggression that has viable ways of being stopped (as opposed to mitigated) whereas a solar storm is agnostic to anything happening on Earth. Even if the mechanism is similar, they are different problems with different solutions.
I believe the US already tracks (or attempts to track) anything resembling a missile headed our way, and there are systems that can take these down before they detonate and cause problems. You can't exactly "stop" a solar flare from hitting Earth. Additionally, we can also use diplomacy to create the conditions where China (or anyone else) won't want to EMP us (or at least won't benefit from doing it, even if they do want to), but we can't do that with the Sun.
And that's where my point on prioritization comes into play. We're more likely to invest in technology like Israel's Iron Dome to prevent an EMP from another nation than we would a full scale re-build of the grid to mitigate what amounts to an act of God from the sun.
If an enemy nation wanted to conduct an EMP attack, they wouldn't need to do it with an ICBM that we'd be able to identify as such. Getting an object into LEO would not, on its own, stand out, and would provide an avenue for attack (or the threat of an attack) that would not be detectable in the same way as an ICBM launch.
Of course, the harm to their own systems would be substantial as well given that it would have a huge impact on satellites in orbit, not just systems on the ground.
True. It would admittedly be a much different and more challenging problem to stop something coming back in from Space as opposed to an ICBM - you're right there.
But yea the mutually assured misery that it might cause in LEO for everyone would make this only likely form a truly rogue state. Maybe NK, but trying to identify who the threat would be changes this from a solar flare risk/mitigation discussion fully to a geopolitical theory one ;)
> more challenging problem to stop something coming back in from Space as opposed to an ICBM
Well, the reason I point out LEO is that Starfish Prime was detonated at 250 miles, that's within the range of a low Earth orbit. You don't need to return anything to Earth to have the desired effect, or even have it on an Earthward trajectory (such as deorbiting the satellite).
EDIT:
> would make this only likely form a truly rogue state
Can't we really? AFAIUI it's mostly charged particles coming in relatively slow, or rather us/Earth entering their path, like walking into a lawn sprinkler.
Not Gamma-, or X-Rays hitting us directly at the speed of light in direct line of sight.
Now imagine a cluster of satellites which puts them in orbit between us, and the Sun, or rather enough of them in front of Earths surface at dawn. Because that side is 'forward' on Earths track around the Sun.
These sats could be mostly dormant, to be set in rotation, unspooling really long thin wires, electrically charged by whichever means. Like a giant electromagnetic umbrella. Slowing the stuff down, or diverting it outright.
I think that would be valuable, even if they would have to be discarded after 'one time use'.
My "we can't do that with the sun" statement was re: being able to use diplomacy to avoid it, not that there aren't theoretical (albeit far fetched) solutions. We can't create the conditions where the sun doesn't "want" to solar flare us - it's random chance and uncorrelated to anything we do. We can influence the "odds" for something like an EMP (or LEO nuke detonation) happening.
If we had an unlimited budget to prioritize science fiction projects like this, then sure man, I guess there's solutions that could exist that shield the planet entirely lol
> 1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
If only the world worked this way. Until something happens, a lot of potential problems remain potential problems rather than getting remedied. Especially when it'll be expensive to fix.
Here are some of the risks that are currently unfeasible to mitigate:
G5:
> Widespread voltage control problems and protective system problems can occur, some grid systems may experience complete collapse or blackouts. Transformers may experience damage.
S5:
> Satellites may be rendered useless, memory impacts can cause loss of control, may cause serious noise in image data, star-trackers may be unable to locate sources; permanent damage to solar panels possible.
---
One extremely unlucky solar event can set us back for years, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to prepare for it long term. Our best predictive models give us a couple of days notice.
In a sense, we're more prepared for an asteroid collision (not by much) than a solar event.
There's never been a recorded S5 solar radiation storm. The highest level recorded was 43000 or S4 back in 1991. Another S4 storm occurred recently back in January 19, 2026 with a recorded flux of 36976.133.
Some of the accounts linked with those events are almost of biblical proportions. Red crucifixes on the sunset (associated with the 774–775 carbon-14 spike), sky serpents and so on.
The unpredictability of those events is a major point of anxiety by the way. We don't know enough to predict when the next big one will hit, and modern society has never seen one (the Carrington Event being the closest match, but still timid compared to the proxy evidence we have for what a strong solar event could be).
Your comment sounds dismissive. Did you intend it that way?
The table you cite goes back to the 1960s. The weather in the article occurs about 100 years before that. Not recording an S5 event doesn’t mean humanity has not experienced one.
Whether it’s worth preparing for is another issue entirely.
I don’t get it will the x-rays damage the power infrastructure? or only the solar storm afterwards? because we know when a solar storm is coming hours out so we can just turn everything off..
"Turning things off" is not enough, by the way. A transformer doesn't need to be operating (delivering power) to be damaged by a geomagnetic storm. If it is connected, or not properly isolated or not properly grounded, it can be affected.
The X-Rays mostly disturb the ionosphere, affeting communications. It causes radio blackouts. CMEs (which can co-occur or occur separately with flares) are a burp of charged particles that are most dangerous to equipment when they hit Earth. The largest the burp and largest intersection with Earth's trajectory, the stronger the event and its effects.
I don’t really understand the purpose of the linked article but you can disconnect the transformers from the grid via software which, if they were already turning off all the power generating stations to mitigate the damage of a Carrington level event they would certainly do as well..
A literal man doesn’t need to go and flip a switch in person to disconnect transformers from the grid. As to how they power such a device it was never with transformer level voltage so who cares it’s tangential
> A literal man doesn’t need to go and flip a switch in person to disconnect transformers from the grid.
I never said it did.
> As to how they power such a device it was never with transformer level voltage so who cares it’s tangential
You do understand the notion of a huge ass sun-burp sized oscillating magnetic field driving a conductor to surge, right?
Also, you are suggesting a software kill-switch to the entire electrical grid, with no obvious way to turn it on back again, in the age of cyberwarfare.
I'm not a specialist, but I don't need to be one to know you're vibe electrical engineering instead of speaking from a place of experience.
> 4. As long as there’s a neutral line, i think any common mode should be rejected, in which case this should be fine?
The (grounded) neutral conductor actually completes the circuit, a wye/star transformer has a grounded neutral and the primary and secondary neutral terminals are bonded. The return path is ground and all of the transformers are linked together via the grounded neutral.
Apparently this can be mitigated by wiring a capacitor into the grounded neutral path of a wye transformer.
I’m not an EE, just an electrical PM who knows enough to be dangerous :)
It’s interesting you feel the need to disclaim. Most EE’s aren’t taught electrical utility-side wiring or motivations in standard curricula unless and only maybe they opt for power engineering, more likely in a grad track. (source: like any once-engineering undergraduate I comparatively examined course syllabi). A lot is relegated to trade knowledge - i.e. precisely from whence you are apparently speaking from.
>1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
You live on Earth correct :) just joking.
Just look at what has been done for Climate Change, we knew for 50, probably 70 years what fossil fuels are doing to Earth. Plus a good estimate was know when Climate Change would affect the Earth. Here we are heading to +3.5C, probably 4C.
Since when a Carrington type event will happen is unknown, do you really think we would prepare for it ? That would cost real money, maybe taking wealth from the super rich.
We've experienced nothing like Carrington-event scale after that happened. Luckily so, I think.
Then there are things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyake_event which we have located several traces of in geological records. They are at least a magnitude stronger than anything which Carrington carried. And statistically long overdue.
If one of these happened today, that would be a really interesting experience.
Er. All the DataCenters we are building are protected from carrington/Miyake event type damage right?}
I assume the "data-centers in space" idea that company worth 2 trillion dollars is supposed to be working on has been figured out so that carrington events aren't a problem too.
> The US robotics industry’s supply chain reliance on China has persisted despite the Trump administration trying to boost domestic supply chains and robotic production.
Maybe this is obvious, but even very stringent measures would not have much effect over this timescale. The entire supply chain moved to China over the course of like 15 years, it will probably take similar time to move anywhere else.
> In July, the Federal Communications Commission banned new foreign-made robots such as humanoid robots and four-legged robot dogs, along with robot vacuum cleaners.
Wow, this is news to me! I’m glad I got my robot vacuum cleaner before
Ya, I don't want to minimize the problem of sea levels rising, but the recent storms had massive swells (I believe partially because of the El Nino year). The sand on most of these beaches is not natural, it's pumped up to the shore to encourage tourism. It is normal for it to wash away during big swell, and not necessarily an indication of the sea level rising.
You could argue that the extreme El Nino this year is due to global warming, which is obviously related, but it's not quite the same as just rising sea levels.
That is kindof crazy! Imagine you are suspicious that something is awry in your soft tissue, in which case I think MRI is the main diagnostic (?). Then you don’t find out for ten weeks, plus some for analysis!
> MRI's are expensive and difficult to amortize for poorer countries or ones that don't have a great healthcare system
Canada is towards the bottom. I see what you did there. I guess I never considered Canada a poor country or one with a bad healthcare system. But at the same time I was only there a few times to a major city and never interacted with their healthcare system.
I feel there's many interesting pieces to this -- Yudkowsky certainly has extreme views, it's clear there are a ton of poly and open people in this community, some people do have a religious veneration for Yudkowsky and "rationality" in general, and there's some smarmy folks in the mix. But I'm not sure any of that is a negative critique of the general movement. I suspect similar statements were true of the enlightenment, protestantism, and the beatniks? Marginalized views, free expression, and new ideas often go together in what I feel is an obvious pattern. I don't care if there's a bunch of sexually liberal people in this org, or some obsessive fan-devotion, so long as they're not forcing somebody into a situation they don't want. These people can live their lives however they want; I think that's quintessentially American in a way that's very positive and increasingly rare. And on the other side, there are many impacts from this movement that I'm quite happy with: I'm really happy that this movement has spawned/impacted GiveWell, the Long Now, Scott Alexander, Works in Progress, and Open Philanthropy, to name just a few. I'm also happy that it seems to have birthed the latest AI progress. Of course there are things that I find ridiculous (I didn't really like hpmor, their forum board is somewhat silly, and Roko's Basilisk[0] is just hilarious, lol).
If this piece was meant as documentation of a particular moment in time, then they've picked a really fascinating group to document! But it feels like it's really meant as criticism, that we should trust the whole group less because there are some sexually open fans of Yudkowsky. I'm not sure I can get on board with that. If sexually open fans of Yudkowsky want to build great things, I say let them!
> “Alarming reports indicate that a network of foreign actors, led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is attempting to manipulate U.S. policy and public opinion on data centers.“
Setting aside the politics, trump, ai-doom/boom, I just think this claim is fascinating. Can somebody steel man this? What’s the best evidence for this?
I mean, I don't particularly doubt it's happening (and that the US tries to do the similar things in China, mess with public opinion in ways we think convenient for us or inconvenient for the CCP). Like, why wouldn't they try to mess with us this way, we're so easy to mess with. I don't think either the USA or Chinese governments are limited by things like "ethics" or "international law" or something. I'm talking about social media campaigns with sock puppets etc, mostly on the internet. How effective it is or exactly how many resources they are putting into it is another story.
That obviously doesn't mean that everyone who is protesting a data center is working for China, or wouldn't be doing so if it weren't for Chinese interference. It's plausible to me that China is messing with social media with puppet accounts and stuff (like why wouldn't they be?), much less plausible they have agents on the ground organizing or even going to protests or public hearings (and obviously even if they did, it would not be _most_ of the campaigns or protests against data centers).
reply