GuruJ

The SEC Compressed Air Battery, a zero emissions, 20 megawatt closed loop CO2 battery will be delivered in partnership with Energy Dome.

Deep down I know that’s probably the case, but I am (perhaps delusionally) hoping from some transparency on where the $$$ are coming from, if it’s from the Saudi buyout, it it applies EVO branding to supported locals or has other requirements, etc.

So if changes to the CGT discount is a so called “tax grab” for the government…isn’t it fair to say the ridiculous 50% CGT discount introduced by Howard 27 years ago was a tax rort for the wealthy?

Allright folks, gather round. Should we trust the experts? Is it first hand experience that we should privilege? Perhaps we should only use vetted sources? How do we find truth in a complex world? You won't be shocked to hear that nature has had to solve this problem before, and solve it it has. When Konstantin Kisin talks about needing to experience something yourself to have a non-trust-based opinion of it, he's underselling the problem. We know that eye witnesses get things wrong in court all the time. We know that people see and hear things that didn't happen. Ask David Copperfield. Even our senses cannot be trusted fully. How does nature solve this problem? Wel, no solution is perfect, but the idea is to combine multiple, heterogenous sources of data. If you just hear something, you may be hearing things. If you just see something, you may be seeing things. But if you see *and* hear something at the same time, well, that makes it a lot more likely that it's real. If you can touch it as well, more real still. If you can interact with it, if it acknowledges your presence, well, at that point either you're on heavy drugs, dreaming, or the thing is really there. This idea comes up over and over and over again. I attached a thread where I go over the concept, call it sensor fusion, or perhaps consilience, as it appears in multiple scientific disciplines, from robotics to investing to biology and beyond. There is no gold standard signal that you can always trust to know something is true. The point is to have multiple independent signals. Experts are good, direct experience is good, data from organizations with skin in the game is good, reputation is good, legal submissions are good, and so on and so forth. There are tons and tons and TONS of different paths you can take to increase your confidence in certain important propositions being true. In most cases people generally agree, and there's little point going too far (unless of course you're breaking new ground, in which case it pays to try and find gaps in shared perceptions). But when discussing controversial issues, especially when people's motivations differ, there are no easy answers. You need to be able to process all sorts of data, and ideally you need to have your conclusions **independently** verified by multiple paths. The word "independently" matters here. The different signals you combine cannot be all entangled other than through reality. For instance, a journalist tries to get multiple sources to corroborate a fact. But if those sources are talking to each other, or if a third source is informing both of them, then the sources don't count as independent. So what's the answer? Well, epistemic humility of course. Being skeptical but also humble. But not to the point where you believe nothing. Ultimately, every sensemaking system is judged by how well it anticipates the future. We don't engage in maintaining a world model for fun. We do it so we can live our lives without making grave errors that we could have avoided but for having a better model. So adopting radical cynicism doesn't work either. We need the set of pragmatic compromises that let us generally get in the region of truth most of the time, and have enough slack so that we can self-correct if we get something obviously wrong. Seeking and combining a heterogenous set of signals is the way that over and over again seems to be paying dividends.

@Texas_Showdown @NoahtheProdigy @oac_kemet @jchensor @WTHamad @HammsArcade Thank you guys for giving us a crazy dope time this year! Can't wait for next year!

Debate was boring, moderators were biased against Trump, but Trump also lied and exaggerated a lot, Kamala had canned lines and didn't present an interesting new vision for governance, both candidates completely uninterested in taking on powerful interests.