Paul Crowley

"To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." - Aldous Huxley, 1933

@yitscar @eshear @IsaacKing314 Who is applying it infinity times? I'm applying it a finite but unbounded number of times.

@ciphergoth @eshear @IsaacKing314 Why is applying successor() infinity times, emotionally valid, but applying choice_random() is not ?

I don't think I've ever met an ultrafinitist. My position is that they don't exist.

@s0ulDirect0r @CletusCornpone It's pretty different from HPMOR but I also enjoyed The Spy Who Came In from the Cold.

@CletusCornpone i'm going to pretend you said "hey seems like you're starving for some good reads, if you like this, you should check out this writer called John le Carré." then i'd ask you "yeah you're right i am, i've never heard of the guy, what of his work should i check out?"

i finished reading HPMOR a few days ago and i've been trying to watch anime and other stuff since...and it all feels so DUMB. just absolutely mind-numbingly boring as piss. what in the hell am i supposed to do now?? i feel like i've lost something that i'm glad to have lost.

@AdamRochussen @LocasaleLab I appreciate you standing up here, but I'm not sure what part of your account is incompatible with Jason's picture of events?

Sorry Jason, you’re totally wrong here. I know you’re sensitive to false accusations and witch-hunts—I am too. This is not an example of that. Here is some more info: Satchin brings in immense sums of money to Salk. The institute has every financial and reputational incentive to keep him at the institute. Triggered by a detailed report submitted by an RA, which contained physical evidence, the institute decided to run its own investigation (using a third party) into the allegations of both sexual misconduct (a fraction of which is covered in this Science article) *and* much more prolific instances of workplace bullying. This investigation dragged on for ~4 months. Many lab members quit the lab quietly during this time. No fanfare or witch-hunt. Why would junior scientists swap labs half way through a PhD or project if Satchin was a totally upstanding guy and great mentor?? ~3 weeks before the investigation concluded, Satchin stopped showing up to lab. When I zoomed with him, he initially said he has to work from home because he had “appointments”. Later, he told me and others that he had vertigo and was told by his doctor not to drive. This is a guy who used to frequently show up on Saturdays to see who was/wasn’t working then. Salk would’ve covered taxis for him if he asked. It later transpired that Salk had barred him from campus. He was not allowed into Salk without a security escort (this is still the case, even though his official “resignation” date is August 13th. Then, HR called a meeting with us lab members to tell us the investigation had concluded (this was July 1st). They said they weren’t allowed to divulge details or the results of the investigation, but that Satchin had “chosen to resign” from the institute effective Aug 13th, but he is not allowed on campus. We were also told that we are only to meet with him remotely and to only talk about science. Satchin emailed us to tell us that all of a sudden he wants to write a book and that he’s shutting down the lab. If this was true, it is, by itself, a horrendously selfish move. Many lab members (myself included) are on J1/H1B visas. Completely disrupting the lives of ~20 people just because you want to write a book is not justifiable. Of course, the book excuse is a complete lie. He’s taking us all for fools by coming up with the dumbest shit imaginable. He’s written two books before as a PI. Everyone knows you don’t need to shut down a lab to churn out another one. I zoomed with him privately to give him a final chance to apologise or say anything remotely honest. He did not. He then told me that he’s not worried about allegations being leaked because it would be career suicide if any of us in the lab said anything. At this point I made up my mind to contact Science. Bear in mind that this whole time, the institute was telling us to keep quiet and refer all journalists’ questions to Salk’s press office. It transpires that Satchin’s lawyers had reached an agreement whereby he voluntarily resigns, meaning he can’t sue Salk later, but that Salk has to sign an NDA. Satchin is free to deny allegations. He’s also has been able to contact funders and try to persuade them to let him take money with him to wherever he wants to set up a new lab. Salk couldn’t counter this by sharing details. And no I’m not hiding behind anonymity. Neither is Tiffany. And yes, there are real risks for us. I now don’t have a reference letter for faculty applications. You know how important these are (they shouldn’t be, but that’s another story). I also don’t know if/how I’ll get to publish everything I’ve done in my postdoc. And if people aren’t persuaded of the truth, I’ll be considered a bitchy loudmouth. As for Laura’s comment in the article, it is almost certainly the case that Satchin had persuaded her to do this. The whole “the lab is a big family” schtick is wording that Satchin uses all the time. Please rethink your false assessment here. You are deeply mistaken.

Science portrays this guy as a powerful tyrant surrounded by powerless victims. The purpose is clear: blacklist him and make sure he never works again. Rather than examining what is actually known with any nuance, Science has turned a murky matter into a public smear campaign. The article casts this guy as having nearly unlimited control over the supposedly powerless people around him. But that power is fictional. Compared with the administrators he is up against, he is a peon. He cannot defend himself by saying anything about the accusations without exposure to further allegations of retaliation. The supposedly powerless can speak anonymously to Science while the supposed tyrant is effectively silenced. The manipulation is obvious in how the article is constructed. It includes a token favorable female voice describing him positively, but in language so generic and nondescript that it creates the some semblance of objectivity without challenging the intended narrative. Meanwhile, the accusations and insinuations receive the vivid, emotionally charged treatment needed to make him appear as menacing as possible. The truth is completely unclear. The investigation occurred behind closed doors, and only one side is presented with any force. What really happened remains unknown. The article does not provide enough reliable information to establish the truth because establishing the truth is not the purpose. It invokes unnamed people supposedly afraid of repercussions, yet presents no allegation that this guy did anything to hurt anyone’s career. Insinuations of fear substitute for evidence, reinforcing a narrative propped up by an opaque institutional finding and then used to campaign for his permanent blacklisting. There are already countless checks and balances designed to prevent retaliation, including specific policies and laws. Even beyond the official rules, the general climate in academia is such that saying anything negative about anyone can itself carry serious repercussions. The result has little to do with establishing the truth and far more to do with generating attention while legitimizing and effectively giving more authority to powerful administrators who can destroy careers through opaque, one-sided investigations. Science has become addicted to attention, outrage, and scare tactics.

@flowirin @parakeetnebula ah OK, sorry to hear that! How much do you like deepthroating in general?

@ciphergoth @parakeetnebula it wasn't pleasant

I’m sorry but I have to ask: if you’ve tried to suck your own dick and succeeded, could you deep throat yourself?

@flowirin @parakeetnebula absolutely amazing. I think I'd never leave the house.

@ciphergoth @parakeetnebula x.com/i/grok/share/5…

@flowirin @parakeetnebula 8% of people who have succeeded in sucking their own dicks can deep throat themselves? That is insane! Are there porn videos of people performing this feat?

@ciphergoth @parakeetnebula 8% disagree

@russ62960450 @clairlemon There is a little urine in your beer - where do you think the water to make it comes from?

@clairlemon “It’s just a little urine in the beer. Still drinkable.”

The fact that conservatives are attacking the most conservative cultural artefact produced in decades has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever witnessed. Its honestly dumber than anything the Wokes ever did.

@clairlemon "dumber than anything the Wokes ever did" there is truth in what you say but come on, this is a ridiculously high bar and it doesn't cross it.

@funplings @sergeantsup readscottalexander.com/posts/ssc-shou…

@sergeantsup forget where it originated but ive found the general idea to reverse all advice to be useful

@sergeantsup sounds like a "reverse any advice you hear" situation readscottalexander.com/posts/ssc-shou…

@James_West_PhD @HistoryBoomer The last one is neither true nor false.

@HistoryBoomer All of those statements except 6,8,9 are just true. It is amazing to me that 15% of CONSERVATIVES would report you for saying there was no anti-black bias in police shootings.

This is quite bad, but note the wording: "should be reported for." The students aren't saying THEY would do it. They just think the professor DESERVES to be reported. Probably most of them wouldn't actually do it. Still bad numbers.

@PedroPfff @ATabarrok I think it's a pretty good bit and he earned the clicks!

@ciphergoth @ATabarrok He's joking to earn profits from his verified account

Never leaving this website:

@JoeyGamblesThe1 @ATabarrok That's what I'm trying to communicate by linking to this!

@ciphergoth @ATabarrok You realize you’re being trolled right?

@NoahTopper anagram.com/jcrap/Volume_2…

@NoahTopper Manuel Blum was really committed to the bit!

claude shannon was really committed to the bit

@NoahTopper ...yes?

british people be like “i’m off to watch a film at the cinema”

@AliceFromQueens @Jesse_Leg He said "frankly, there is only one majority in this country — that's the working class." It says bad things about him that he refuses to clarify.

@ciphergoth @Jesse_Leg Because it’s a silly question for a mayor. He’s not a New Left Review editor. His answer is irrelevant to policy

You do have to feel for all those young, working class New Yorkers making $250k a year who still can’t afford the basic dignities of life: an Equinox membership, daily Sweetgreen, an Oura Ring, the occasional Hillstone Resy, a Taskrabbit housekeeper every now and then, a one-bedroom in a West Village doorman building with in-unit washer/dryer, or—God forbid—a Blade out to the Hamptons sharehouse once a summer.

@CruiseZodler @zooko he watched this important documentary en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird:_Th…

@zooko Wuuuut

Tonight I learned that Weird Al’s “Eat It” was actually the original, and came out before Michael Jackson’s “Beat It”.

@WaldamyDoe @jon_vs_moloch @cremieuxrecueil Sadly that's exactly so :( I don't know why they throw that data away :(

@ciphergoth @jon_vs_moloch @cremieuxrecueil Doesn't it only log one sleep per day, so all of the naps are skipped? Same for the Apple Watch as I know. Iirc Amazfit watches track naps fine, there's a cheaper Helio Strap now, so for no screen device you may try that one.

@cremieuxrecueil I have mastered the art of polyphasic sleeping. You too can sleep the way I do: - completely fail to get enough hours sleep at night, no matter what you do - take naps during the day to try to make up for it