I would have expected that when the pandemic hit that there would be a flurry of innovative solutions to the problem of "meetings and social interactions online."
But it seems like there was very little of that.
There's Zoom, of course, and a few platforms on the model of gather.town.
But...that's about it?
(Maybe there are lots more, but I haven't heard of them?)
I'm thinking about this now because the Rationality Community had its secular solstice tonight, which was held on a custom app that was designed to allow a few hundred people from all over the world to sing songs together, without it being terrible.
There were some minor snags, but the software basically worked.
It seems like many groups (a housemate suggests churches) would have a similar need. Why wasn't the market already serving that need?
Or take go.rally.video, which is like Zoom, but explores a somewhat different part of the design space. (For instance, there are "tables" that you can easily move between), and you can set it so that you can hear ambient sound from other tables.)
It gives you a different set of affordances, for more flexible mingling, or exercise pairing, or what have you.
I would have guessed that there are at least 10 "simulated in-person" niches like those two, and I would have guessed that entrepreneurial software engineers would have jumped on it and explored the space, over the past year.
Did that happen and I'm just not seeing it?
Or is there something that I'm missing about the world, such that I shouldn't have expected this to happen?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@Insect_Song But...the label "bad actor." I think that that label is useful, and I don't particularly dispute it's use here, but that doesn't mean that I don't think it is useful to empathize with the internal state of bad-actors (unless you're doing that as insulation from manipulation).
@Insect_Song "Bad actor" to me, is like a boundary that a person is setting, but it doesn't preclude understanding the fuck up that results from conflicting first-person perspectives that are each laying claim to some burden of proof thing.
@Insect_Song Like, the thing that is happening there seems like an usually crisp example of a thing that is happening all the time, between people who are behaving correctly in their own world.
This is an amazing case study in poor communication. Everyone I talk to is is much better than this, but the dynamics here are writ-large versions of mistakes that we are probably making.
I'm looking at this thinking "What went wrong here, and what general pattern, or piece of skill, would have been needed to avoid what went wrong?"
First pass: Is the core thing that's happening here about which things should be assumed to be willful misunderstanding and which things should be assumed to to be honest mistakes? That is, where do you allocate charity?
Why is it that Bioethics, as a field, doesn't look like a bunch of (less smart) Bostroms, weighing tradeoffs and steering towards overall good outcomes, but instead looks like a bunch of people promoting harmful polices in the name of morality?
@yashkaf Also, this is a good example of the virtue of humorlessness. @JeffLadish asked a (mostly?) joke question, but I reflexively took it seriously.
Which led me to actually think about, and, I think, attain some new insight about the world.
I do, dispositional, process all questions literally, even when I know that they are ironic or phatic.
That's not to say that this kind of investigation precludes humor, or vice versa. Probably there is some better synthesis. But also, this attitude is adaptive.
@JeffLadish I think because the reward structure of being a bio-ethicist rewards saying level-headed sounding, cautious-sounding, conventional wisdom?
Though I'm not sure why that is.
@JeffLadish I guess if you want to radically improve the world, you mostly don't go into a field that is about opining on other people's work, you go into something like Engineering and do the work?
@JeffLadish I note that Nick Bostrom is what a Bioethicist should be: he thinks hard about tradeoffs and risks, and crystalizes concepts like the Unilateralist's curse and black ball technologies.
But this is starting from a place of "The world could be vastly better. How do we get there?"