2026-04-22 21:00:00
When I write about things like storing food or medication in case of disaster, one common response I get is that it doesn't matter: society will break down, and people who are stronger than you will take your stuff. This seemed plausible at first, but it's actually way off.
Looking at past disasters, people mostly fall somewhere on a "kind and supportive" to "keep to themselves" spectrum. When there is looting it's typically directed at stores, not homes, and violence is mostly in the streets. Having supplies at home lets you stay out of the way.
One distinction it's worth making is between short (hurricane, earthquake) and long (siege, economic collapse, famine) disasters. Having what you need at home is really helpful in both cases, but differently so.
In short disasters (1917 Halifax explosion, London Blitz, 1985 Mexico City earthquake, 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami) you typically see sharing and mutual aid. Stored supplies mean you're not competing for scarce resources, have slack to help others, and make you more comfortable.
Stories of looting in situations like this are often exaggerated or cherry-picked. I had heard post-Katrina New Orleans had a lot of looting, but this was actually rumor. There's a really good article, "Katrina Takes a Toll on Truth, News Accuracy" on how rumors got reported as fact, and how the truth was nowhere near this bad. But the rumors had real effect at the time, including contributing to police and vigilante overreaction. Future disasters will also have rumors and reckless people with guns trying to be the 'good guys'; more reason to stock what you need so you can stay home.
Long disasters are uglier. Here I think having supplies matters even more, but so does caution. The siege of Leningrad is a pretty extreme example, where survival mostly came down to things outside people's control (ex: ration categories). When people did have stored food, however, it was very helpful as long as they were discreet. As people became increasingly desperate over the prolonged siege-induced starvation there are stories of people cooking at night or eating food raw to avoid alerting their neighbors (and, in the case of raw food, also because of lack of fuel).
Argentina and Venezuela are less extreme examples, but still informative. Because these were not nearly as severe as Leningrad there was much less societal breakdown. When there was violence and theft, it was concentrated around stores and transit; while there were home robberies this was uncommon. People who had more at home needed to shop less, which meant less exposure.
Similarly, in the siege of Sarajevo the risk was different (snipers and shelling, not robbers) but the takeaway is the same: people who had supplies and were able to stay home were less exposed to the risk.
Across both short and long disasters the pattern is similar: risk is mostly external, homes are rarely targeted, and having supplies that let you stay home is protective. The "people who are stronger than you will take your stuff" still happens, and in long disasters it's worth putting thought into how to avoid being a visible target, but it's not a major factor and it's not nearly enough to outweigh the value of having food and other resources on hand.
Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, mastodon, bluesky, substack
2026-04-21 21:00:00
Three years ago I wrote about how we should be preparing for less privacy: technology will make previously-private things public. I applied this by showing how I could deanonymize people on the EA Forum. In 2023 this looked like writing custom code to use stylometry on an exported corpus representing a small group of people; today it looks like prompting "I have a fun puzzle for you: can you guess who wrote the following?"
Kelsey Piper writes about how Opus 4.7 could identify her writing from short snippets, and I decided to give it a try. Here's a paragraph from an unpublished blog post:
Tonight she was thinking more about how unfair milking is to cows, primarily the part where their calves are taken away, and decided she would stop eating dairy as well. This is tricky, since she's a picky eater and almost everything she likes has some amount of dairy. I told her it was ok if she gave up dairy, as long as she replaced it nutritionally. The main tricky thing here is the protein (lysine). We talked through some options (beans, nuts, tofu, meat substitutes, etc) and she didn't want to eat any of them except breaded and deep-fried tofu (which is tasty, but also not somethign I can make all the time). We decided to go to the grocery store.
Correctly identified as me. Perhaps a shorter one?
My extended family on my mom's side recently got together for a week, which was mostly really nice. Someone was asking me how our family handles this: who goes, what do we do, how do we schedule it, how much does it cost, where do we stay, etc, and I thought I'd write something up.
Also correctly identified as me, with "Julia Wise" as a second guess.
And an email to the BIDA Board:
I spent a bit thinking through these, and while I think something like this might work, I also realized I don't know why we currently run the fans the direction we do. Could they blow in from the parking lot, and out to the back? This would give more time for the air to warm up and disperse before flowing past the dancers. We'd need to make sure to keep the stage door closed to not freeze the musicians.
Also correctly identified as me.
While in Kelsey's testing this appeared to be an ability specific to Opus 4.7, when I gave these three paragraphs to ChatGPT Thinking 5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro, however, they also got all three.
On the other hand, when I gave the same models four of my college application drafts from 2003 (332, 418, 541, and 602 words) they didn't identify me in any of them, so my style seems to have drifted more than Kelsey's over time.
Now, like Kelsey, being prolific means the models have a lot to go on. But models are rapidly improving everywhere, so even if the best models fail your testing today, don't count yourself safe.
The most future-proof option is just not to write anonymously, but there are good reasons for anonymity. I recommend a prompt like "Could you rephrase the following in the style of Kelsey Piper?" Not only is Kelsey a great writer, but if we all do this she'll have excellent plausible deniability for her own anonymous writing.
2026-04-19 21:00:00
I made a new major mode for emacs: mixed-html-mode. Or, really, Claude Code made one at my direction. It does syntax highlighting in HTML files with inline CSS and JS. I had two goals, which weren't met by any mode I could find:
Does not freeze, flash, or stutter, even on huge files on slow machines.
Does not get confused about whether a portion of a file is HTML vs CSS vs JS.
The initial insight was that how browsers decide what text is HTML vs
CSS vs JS is super simple: scanning for literal
<script> and <style> tags. I
pulled some tricky examples, described what I wanted, and then
iterated for about an hour until I had something that worked well.
Then I tried to use it to write something for real, ran into a few
other irritations, had Claude fix those, and now I have something I'm
enjoying a lot.
It's mildly faster than web-mode (and much simpler, and easier to install), and far faster than html-ts-mode. And unlike mhtml-mode it doesn't get confused by quotes.
The biggest drawback is that it doesn't do indentation; I may add that, but right now I'm happy with it the way it is.
I've skimmed the code, but haven't read it in detail, and definitely wouldn't say I understand it. The validation has been a mixture of asking Claude to review it and fix the bugs and warts it finds, making sure Claude has written tests, and using it enough to feel good about it. I do expect it has some bugs left: if you decide to use it and find a situation it handles poorly please let me know.
It's funny: I picked emacs two decades ago because I liked the idea of an editor that was so extensible that it was mostly written in its own extension language, and then never took advantage of this because it was too much work. But now it's not much work! Perhaps emacs will finally catch up to (and overtake) vim?
2026-04-18 21:00:00
I was so excited about the first BIDA dance that I arrived two weeks early. I biked over from Medford to the Park Av Church in Arlington and was really disappointed to find the hall was empty. But I came back when the dance was actually happening, and it was fantastic.
It immediately became my favorite dance. I started volunteering, first out of frugality (volunteers get in free!) and then out of a sense of wanting to contribute, and in 2010 I joined the board. Over the past 16 years I've done just about everything at some point except treasurer, and now I'm stepping away.
It's not that I think BIDA is doing something wrong; quite the opposite! We're seeing record attendance, finances are good, so many fun dancers, and many people who want to pitch in. I noticed I would have been the seventh person running for three board spots, and realized it was a good time to let someone else have a turn. I'm excited to see what Emma, Harris, Bret, Veer, Casey, Naomi, Clara, and Persis do!
This seems like a good time to look back over how BIDA and the Boston dance community have changed over my time organizing.
The biggest change is that BIDA is now Boston's main contra dance. This is kind of hard for me to believe, since we spent so many years as a small dance that tried to fill niches that were not well covered by the many other area dances. We've gone from essentially not booking established bands to booking them regularly, and with our attendance-based bonuses are one of the best-paying dances in the country. I do really enjoy the higher level of musicianship now, but am also really glad Boston Open Contras exists (along with BIDA's open bands and family dance bands) to provide a lower-stakes environment.
The next largest change is probably the switch to gender-free calling (more history), and the level of role freedom that has come along with that. In 2010, I (and many others) would happily dance both roles, but if I was dancing the 'lady' role I had to be 100% on it because if anything went wrong it was my fault. Beginners were strongly discouraged from dancing 'switch', which also discouraged same-gender couples. And while this never happened to me in Boston, conservative men elsewhere would occasionally refuse any sort of physical contact if I encountered them in line while dancing 'lady'. When I look at the dancers now, it's amazing how people have really taken up this freedom to dance any role with any partner, which I feel really good about.
Some smaller changes:
BIDA went from 1x/month to 3x/month, most recently by adding a monthly afternoon dance. Since we take the hottest part of summer off, this means going from ~10 to ~28 dances annually.
We now have a dance weekend, Beantown Stomp. I kicked this off in May 2018, we had our first one in March 2019 and it's now an established and anticipated event that people fly to from across the country. I'm especially grateful for Naomi for taking the lead for 2023 (and beyond!) when I was too burnt out on organizing cancelled events (2020, 2021).
We have occasional family dances and livetronica (Spark in the Dark) events.
Our events are still intergenerational, but differently so. In 2010 most dancers were baby boomers; while BIDA was unusual in how many millennials we had, we were still 50%+ baby boomers. At this point I'd guess our dances are fewer than 10% baby boomers: many have aged out of dancing, and many millennial-and-younger dancers have joined. This is also reflected in the board's focus: the initial board was primarily mid-20s people thinking about how to get more 15-35yos dancing, but since we've succeeded at this it's no longer a focus.
We now schedule (and pay) hall managers. In 2010 we just expected most board members would be at most dances and this would give us enough coverage.
BIDA is a lot more organizationally mature. Minutes from the early days say things like "We agreed not to have a President. Instead, we'll use everyone in the board to make sure that we stay on top of things." This turned out not to work very well, and instead specific roles are in charge of staying on top of specific things, with the intraboard coordinator handling things by default.
We were still bouncing around between a few halls, and now we're always at the Cambridge Masonic Hall.
We're a legal entity now, incorporated as a Massachusetts non-profit.
We set up a safety policy, with a committee to handle issues as they come up.
There used to be a lot more of a mentoring focus. Early dances were often two experienced musicians plus a new musician. Callers would typically have a shadow. Every dance allowed sit-ins (off mic, behind the band). We hosted jams about as often as dances. I see this change as pretty natural, and I think a lot of this is now happening informally outside of BIDA.
Organizing BIDA has been a big part of my identity, but I think it's healthy for the organization to have people cycle through, and I'm confident it's in good hands. Very excited to start attending dances just as a dancer, with no formal responsibility!
Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, mastodon, bluesky, substack
2026-04-07 21:00:00
About ten years ago I sat down in front of a camera and recorded eleven videos showing how I play mandolin for contra dances. I've now done something similar with piano, this time with thirteen videos.
This is not a high quality effort: I didn't write any scripts or even plan what I was going to say. Think of it as if we spent half an hour together, with me showing you how I play. Also keep in mind that I'm self taught, and my particular style that isn't for everyone. And my keyboard is wearing out, which means some of the keys make a clacking sound. And the first video cuts off part of my head, and the first eight videos have tape over the leftmost part of the camera. Ok, with caveats out of the way, the videos:
Last time I did this I put them on a new YouTube channel. In retrospect, that was a mistake: I haven't upladed anything to that channel since that initial burst, and there's a good chance I never upload again. So I've just put these on my regular channel.
2026-04-06 21:00:00
Last week the US president announced that:
... if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately "Open for Business," we will conclude our lovely "stay" in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet "touched." This will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime's 47 year "Reign of Terror."
Yesterday morning he posted that:
Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell...
These are threats to target civilian infrastructure as a coercive measure, which would be a war crime: if Iran doesn't allow tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, the US will cause massive damage to power plants, bridges, and possibly water systems. The US has historically accepted that this is off limits: destroying a bridge to stop it from being used to transport weapons is allowed, but not as retribution or to cause the civilian population to experience "Hell". The Pentagon's own Law of War Manual recognizes this distinction: when NATO destroyed power infrastructure in Kosovo, it was key that the civilian impact was secondary to the military advantage and not the primary purpose. [1][2]
To be clear, what Iran has been doing to precipitate this, by attacking civilian tankers for the economic impacts, is itself a war crime. But that does not change our obligations: the US has worked for decades to build acceptance for the principle that adherence to the Law of War is unconditional. It doesn't matter what our enemies do, we will respect the Law of War "in all circumstances". We've prosecuted our own service members, and enemy combatants, under this principle.
I hope that whatever is said publicly, no one will receive orders to target infrastructure beyond what military necessity demands. You don't need to be a military lawyer (and I'm certainly not one) to see that such orders would meet the threshold at which a member of the armed forces is legally required to disobey. I have immense respect both for commanders who refuse to pass on such orders and for service members who refuse to carry them out. [3]
[1] The manual cites Judith
Miller, former DoD General Counsel, writing on Kosovo that "aside
from directly damaging the military electrical power infrastructure,
NATO wanted the civilian population to experience discomfort, so that
the population would pressure Milosevic and the Serbian leadership to
accede to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, but the intended
effects on the civilian population were secondary to the military
advantage gained by attacking the electrical power infrastructure."
If the impact on civilians had been the primary motivation for NATO's
attacks on power infrastructure they would not have been lawful.
[2] "Military objectives may not be attacked when the expected incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained." (DoD LoWM 5.2.2) and "Diminishing the morale of the civilian population and their support for the war effort does not provide a definite military advantage. However, attacks that are otherwise lawful are not rendered unlawful if they happen to result in diminished civilian morale." (DoD LoWM 5.6.7.3)
[3] "Members of the armed forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations." (DoD LoWM 18.3.2)