@ArthurB How dare you! Of course the letter of the Third Amendment technically only applies to the government, but the *spirit* of the Third Amendment is a much broader social principle, and....

@阿尔瑟伯，你怎么敢！当然，第三修正案的文字在技术上只适用于政府，但第三修正案的“精神”是一个更广泛的社会原则，而且。。。。

@TheZvi @mattyglesias > I expect the correlation between the two to dominate trade-off considerations
Probay true in general but could be divergent at the tails. I do think that some intellectual vs activist tradeoff (passion about a cause good for motivation but amplifies confirmation bias) is real

@TheZvi@mattyglesias>；我预计两者之间的相关性将主导权衡考虑
一般来说可能是正确的，但在尾部可能会有所不同。我确实认为，一些知识分子与活动家之间的权衡（对一项事业的热情有利于激励，但会放大确认偏见）是真实存在的

@TheZvi @mattyglesias What if given the constraints of human brains there is a systematic conflict/tradeoff between optimizing for epistemic rationality and optimizing for instrumental rationality?

@如果考虑到人类大脑的限制，在优化认知理性和优化工具理性之间存在系统性的冲突/权衡，该怎么办？

@PetrovichKolya @visegrad24 > What are you doing to help?
If you want an answer to this question you can always just google my name along with "Ukraine"!

@彼得罗维奇科利亚@visegrad24>；你在帮什么忙？
如果你想知道这个问题的答案，你可以用谷歌搜索我的名字和“乌克兰”！

@aizsardziiba @visegrad24 Focus on helping their children hear a different perspective.

@aizsardziiba@visegrad24专注于帮助孩子听到不同的观点。

@visegrad24 Please be careful. 22 years ago, one of the Russians getting a Western visa was me, along with my family. This gave my dad a chance to start a great business and gave me a chance to grow up without the influence of zombie ideology.
We should not throw such possibilities away.

@请小心。22年前，我和家人是获得西方签证的俄罗斯人之一。这给了我父亲一个创业的机会，也给了我一个在没有僵尸意识形态影响的情况下成长的机会。
我们不应该放弃这种可能性。

@zengjiajun_eth To some extent, the two have to go together!
https://vitalik.ca/general/202... https://t.co/ttbfwBhjIU

@曾家俊：在某种程度上，这两个人必须走在一起！
https://vitalik.ca/general/202... https://t.co/ttbfwBhjIU

@glenweyl @ethereum @a16z @OpenAI @DeepMind I think I agree that the first category is most likely to have negative unintended consequences.
I do believe considering the two axes separately is useful nuance, as it opens the door to careful thinking about how to foster the second and third categories while minimizing risk.

@glenweyl@ethereum@a16z@OpenAI@DeepMind我认为我同意第一类最有可能产生负面的意外后果。
我确实认为，分别考虑这两个轴是有益的细微差别，因为它打开了一扇大门，让人们仔细思考如何培养第二类和第三类，同时将风险降至最低。

@glenweyl @ethereum @a16z @OpenAI @DeepMind Examples in four quadrants:
(i, financial): what you're thinking about
(i, non-financial): censorship-resistant tools for activists
(ii, financial): prediction markets
(ii, non-financial): the ethereum solarpunk community

@glenweyl@ethereum@a16z@OpenAI@DeepMind四个象限中的示例：
（i，财务）：你在想什么
（一、非金融）：活动人士的抗审查工具
（二）金融：预测市场
（二、非财务）：以太坊solarpunk社区

@glenweyl @ethereum @a16z @OpenAI @DeepMind My usual way of splitting this is (i) "protect people from bad governance" vs (ii) "build better governance"
Doing either one requires making moral judgements about bad/better that could be mistaken.
And both (i) and (ii) could be financial or non-financial or in-between.

@glenweyl@ethereum@a16z@OpenAI@DeepMind我通常的拆分方式是（i）“保护人们免受不良治理”与（ii）“构建更好的治理”
做任何一件事都需要对可能出错的坏/好做出道德判断。
（i）和（ii）可以是财务或非财务或介于两者之间。

Possibly the biggest attempt at non-token-holder-centric DAO governance so far. Excited to see where this goes.
👀 https://twitter.com/optimismPB...

这可能是迄今为止非令牌持有者为中心的DAO治理的最大尝试。很高兴看到这一切。
👀 https://twitter.com/optimismPB...

@amasad @tszzl In a high dimensional optimization space, on average you should expect to see few points that are hard to escape in all directioms and lots of saddle points. But the dimension on which you can escape your current saddle point is often hard to find!

@amasad@tszzl在高维优化空间中，平均而言，你应该看到很少几个在所有方向上都难以逃脱的点和很多鞍点。但你能逃离当前鞍点的维度通常很难找到！

@GritGrowthCap @tszzl yo yo fro yo

我和我

@mattyglesias This leads to an interesting deeper question: are there specific areas in which "the morally worse people" are more likely to be factually correct, so we should hear them out?
Admitting hard and cruel-sounding truths about human nature? Accepting taboo tradeoffs? Something else?

@mattyglesias这引出了一个有趣的更深层次的问题：是否有特定领域的“道德较差的人”更可能是事实上正确的，所以我们应该听取他们的意见？
承认关于人性的冷酷无情的真理？接受禁忌权衡？还有别的吗？

@TBSocialist I remember reading the 1849 Proudhon-Bastiat debate when I was in high school (personal interest, not assigned). A very fascinating discussion all around.

@我记得我在高中时读过1849年的普劳东·巴斯夏辩论（个人兴趣，未分配）。这是一场非常有趣的讨论。

@LindellYehuda The goal is to invertibly compress elements in [0...2^256-1] into elements in [0...2^256-2].

@LindellYehuda的目标是将[0…2^256-1]中的元素反向压缩为[0…2^256-2]中的元素。

RT: @VitalikButerin Are you familiar with https://github.com/pornin/para... ?

转发：@VitalikButerin你熟悉吗https://github.com/pornin/para... ?

@LindellYehuda But that doesn't guarantee any *specific* hole. f(2^256-1) still outputs 2^256-1. I want the output 2^256-1 to be unreachable.

@LindellYehuda，但这并不保证有任何特定的洞。f（2^256-1）仍然输出2^256-1。我希望输出2^256-1无法访问。

@ArthurB I was not! Wow this is amazing.
Not quite viable for my "compress 32 bytes" use case, but still really cool.

@阿瑟伯我不是！哇，太棒了。
对于我的“压缩32字节”用例来说不太可行，但仍然很酷。

Motivating use cases:
https://twitter.com/VitalikBut...

激励性用例：
https://twitter.com/VitalikBut...