I saw the reading list yesterday; the site is down now. I’ll look at this guy’s stuff some more a bit later.

http://www.propertarianism.com/reading-list/

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/LargeN.pdf

Watching Taleb win versus every one is like watching a hero in a movie/TV show get better and better and defeat all his enemies. I tried so hard to see if there was ever anything wrong(there wasn’t). Reading him + recommended readings + bibliographies got me so much further than Less Wrong people(They are still stuck with Bayesian vs Frequentist arguments). Thank god.

“It is also necessary to debunk a fallacy: we simply
do not have enough data with commonly discussed
fat-tailed processes to naively estimate a sum and
make series of claims about stability of systems,
pathology of people reacting to risks, etc.
FT
O u observe data and get some confidence that the
average is represented by the sample thanks to a
standard magical “n”. Now what if the data were fat
tailed? How much more do you need? This brief note
explore points more formally developed in Silent Risk

I am extracting this piece as I initially underestimated
how bad the inference problem with fat tails could be.
What I thought was an underestimation by 40 times
turned out to be more like 10 4 times.

The common heuristics in entry level statistics is (for
some obscure reason) n = 30. Assuming we are con-
fortable with such a number in the standard Gaussian
domain, how much larger n does one need for the
same error under a different process? It is strange that
given the dominant role of fat tails nobody thought
of calculating some equivalence table. How can people
compare averages concerning street crime (very thin
tailed) to casualties from war (very fat tailed) without
some sample adjustment?”

That’s concluding sentence from the Stop with the Riot Shaming.

There should be no mercy for the Left, none. This Tyler Reinhard punk could pass for white.

This is the kind of thing that really clears my occasional twinges of conscience, or doubts.

Forward.

I suspect the admin here (and some other NRx dudes) would gravitate toward this quote from RD debunking the possibility for a revamping of paganism:

“I learned much from Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World; it offers fascinating ideas about the “higher world” of ancient cultures, how rulers, institutions, and laws were seen as divine in origin and how this divinity ensured spiritual stability with a clear sense of the proper ranking of classes and human activities, higher spiritual functions versus lower materialistic functions, giving purpose and meaning to life, uplifting everyone in the direction of the higher “invisible reality” and conferring a sacred dignity to leadership roles, rituals, and beliefs. His understanding of the meaning of “tradition” surpasses that of any sociologist.

But Evola is not a practical thinker in tune with the actualities of Western history, what is possible today in the modern world. Just as Spengler called for German conservatives to liberate themselves from Romantic, unrealistic goals based on “dead” programs, the New Right needs to accept and adapt to the realities of international finance, genetic engineering, and robotics. It must not let go of the Faustian ethos.”