2026-01-26
blut im auge
Owl Posting with a skeptical overview of current brain-computer interface technology startups. It seems to me that the fundamental issue with uncertainty around targeting is that you need your read resolution to be better than writing, otherwise increasing precision is likely to actually perform worse than bulk stimulation. Which is why the initial applications should probably be built around mapping the connectome and it’s neuronal activity first. Though as Mahajan mentions, it’s unclear how much demand there would be for such a product.
Venkatesh Rao with speculation on how robots might communicate their internal “emotional”1 state beyond skeumorphism.
Martin Susrik with an interesting description of how Monte Carlo simulations of historical events could be used for empirical validation of political science theories. Personally, I’m very excited for Crusader Kings IV.
Freddie de Boer against anger without purpose, and the need for Democrats to come up with a functional and broadly popular system for immigration reform.
Scott Sumner on the cost to America of acquiring Greenland. And given the mention of Alaska, it seems to me that among the worst possible outcomes from the perspective of Greenland would be becoming subject to the Jones Act.
Jim O'Shaughnessy interview with Cliff Asness is a fun conversation between two old dudes reminiscing on the past and considering the future of the industry.
Elizabeth van Nostrand quick introduction to thrifting.
Probably to avoid controversy, he says “aura” instead of emotion. On that note, there’s a piece from Inkhaven on anger which I’ve been thinking about, but which I haven’t really commented on since I don’t really know the actual situation involved. But my impression is that male discomfort with female anger arises out of the common understanding of what the emotion represents socially between two men: essentially that you are going to give me what I want, otherwise I am going to keep escalating, up to the point where we are going to have to fight it out. If the male target of female anger is willing to hit a girl, then he’ll probably respond with dismissal or incredulity; if not, then he probably feels rather unfairly put upon. My understanding is that this is the reason why so many social norms are designed exactly to prevent female anger from arising in the first place, which makes it unsurprising that many people aren’t able to handle it particularly well if it does occur.
It seems to me that a lot of conflict around wanting your emotions to be understood is based around this tension between its dual purpose between a means of self-expression and as a tool for social coordination. Especially for those who you consider to be close to you, who should by all rights know you better than as just another member of “society”. It means that the two of you aren’t close enough to have your own private language after all.
If the goal is to be kept away from the object of hatred, then practically speaking it seems to me that a good approach would be to signal fear, not even necessarily of the person, but even just that one is “afraid of themselves” and their own potential actions in the adverse situation, since society generally understands fear as an appeal for assistance in an unpleasant situation to withdraw and get away.
It occurs to me that this is related to the phenomena of women venting at men and then getting annoyed at their subsequent attempts to “fix the problem”, a disconnect due to how the genders treat emotions: women as self-expression, and men as instrumental. This could explain the differential reception of characters belonging to the “seductress” archetype, who treats her own emotional output as instrumental in order to manipulate men and reach desired outcomes. Women probably see this as a false betrayal of the self, whereas for many men, it could feel more like a pattern of refreshingly clear and honest communication.