I interpreted that post not as encouraging quick bullshit but just pointing out appealing qualities that quick bullshit often has and high-effort stuff often lacks.

For example, I think your recent post on visualization has many of those qualities, despite being substantive and high effort!

I wouldn't summarize the post that way, though I suppose it is one implication. (Or were you referring to a specific part of the post?)

that's one of the more suspicious searches i've ever run

not information theory!

Someone pointed me to this post from someone supposedly working on a dating app. I think you'll find that it confirms most of your suspicions...

blog.luap.info/what-really-...

I mean...

both, but i reiterate that i did not mean to imply anything negative! (in general i think being weird is good and people should be more weird)

Ack, I didn't mean lacking substance! I don't mean anything negative at all, I just think it's interesting that such a small pool of people can (and do?) develop such a novel vernacular.

Ha, I'm not sure how I came up with that word. This says it's not well recognized but also somehow captures exactly my intended meaning.

@norvid-studies.bsky.social @gracekind.net

I think Bayesianism is mostly immune from this problem? (Odd, because I don't think it's *designed* to be immune to that issue...)

Don't choose! Just run for as long as you feel like running, then walk until you feel like running again. The dirty secret is that if you do this for a year or two, you'll find yourself running a few km with almost no effort.

Metacritic ranks them this way (only 78 for Hard Eight!?)

There Will Be Blood: 93
Licorice Pizza: 90
Phantom Thread: 90
Inherent Vice: 81
The Master: 86
Boogie Nights: 86
Punch-Drunk Love: 78
Hard Eight: 78
Magnolia: 77

What I find funny is I acknowledged that USUALLY people are biased to think everyone is more similar to us than they really are. But I claimed this was an exception.

I guess it isn't!?