tobychev

Not sure what this account will be about, mostly boosting things I find interesting.

Last Notes

2026-03-05 16:55:07 UTC

- reply

I think you misunderstood my intent, I didn't speak of the contrast between the parliamentarian and the scientist.
Rather I wish to highlight that the same person can use different modes of communication depending on the context, because what is appropriate depends on the context. For example, Greta roared "How dare you" at the UN climate action summit, delivering a speech centered around emotions. But in her climate book the mode is instead presenting a wide range of expertise with the concluding hope "you can start connecting the dots yourself". However in both cases what she is doing is fundamentally political activism.
@npub16jr…knep @npub1l94…7x64

2026-03-05 10:16:26 UTC

- reply

I think part of the confusion you express comes from not specifying the context in which the political speech is happening; political speech on an apple box in the street is different in kind from the political speech at the parliamentary hearing.
For example the initial claims that the activists doesn't have to engage with the arguments of the other side is true for the street case, but is not necessarily true in parliament (depends largely on how good the opposing arguments are).
The reason for this distinction is partially the social context, but also that the content of debate is different, on the street you do not bother with the details and it's only the big principles that matter. In parliament you are in the unfortunate position of having to do all the detailed work, and have to resolve the contradictions between opposing principles that arise in the particulars.
@npub1l94…7x64

2025-05-16 09:57:22 UTC

- reply

The benefit of explicitly articulating your theoretical base is mainly that you have the opportunity to make it consistent across the area you work in.
The risk with not articulating your theory of the field is you pick up methods from others that build on different assumptions and then the end result is not very good because it is self-contradictory.
@npub17x4…u7yh

2024-10-24 20:34:47 UTC

- reply

Wonder what sort of Christian theology Douthat would get if instead of Copenhagen the believed in the many worlds interpretation 🤔
Or they could try Barbour's related interpretation, where QM is perfectly timless and the universal wavefunction just happens to concentrate on state space points that from the inside look like they are part of a history...

2024-09-12 08:27:28 UTC

- reply

Almost entirely unrelated, a friend once saw an advertisement for a rental apartment in Germany that stated that the _floor_ was not included!

2024-06-15 14:02:14 UTC

- reply

When it comes to voting there's not a lot of options for how to punish the party that betrayed you: by construction a proportional system only allows you to either vote for the "traitors" or their opponents, there's no "half voting" or other mechanisms for expressing conditional support.
And in any case, in your above mode of reasoning there would be no recourse: even conditional support will easily be described as "stupid self sabotage" as it leaves the labour side weakened.
In truth, the single vote of support is a very blunt instrument for expressing approval.
Thus, if you restrict the possible actions to just the vote, the counterintuitive conclusion that you have to vote against your interests to bring about desired change (over the long term) is actually unavoidable.
But of course there are other ways to affect party behaviour beyond the national vote, though those take more effort and are frankly quite denaturalised in comparison.