reply on: My heuristics for interacting with humans \ stacker news ~meta

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 12 Oct 2023 \ on: My heuristics for interacting with humans meta

If in doubt, act assuming that other people won’t be unreasonable.

Avoid applying game tree search to social dynamics.

I think I've come to the same conclusion out of shear laziness. What the author calls not unreasonable, I call trustworthy. Not unreasonable is a better, more skeptical framing.

lest you become a sneaky snake yourself

Part of me assuming people are trustworthy leads me to assume sneaky snakes don't want to be sneaky snakes and just spent too much time around predisposed sneaky snakes ... at least until they begin to slither around me.

Sneaky people fucking suck.

There's no generic predictor of sneakiness, but I've noticed more sneakiness in insecure people. "With no other way to win the game," they think to themselves, "I will violate the rules of the game." Upon reflection they say, "everyone does it. These aren't not the rules of the game. I'm just super clever and found the hidden rules."

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @0fje0 OP 12 Oct 2023

I call trustworthy.

That reminds me: I still wanted to check out that talk you gave on, was it web of trust? The one where the slides wouldn't load in Safari.

Is it available somewhere?

35 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 12 Oct 2023

It wasn't recorded, but the demo is open source: https://github.com/huumn/wot-demo

If you don't program it might be not very revealing. The demo is still live here: https://www.charlottesweboftrust.com/

I gave a very conceptual overview of web of trust here:

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @0fje0 OP 13 Oct 2023

Thanks, that was really helpful.

Even understood at a high level a little bit of the javascript.