I was using “power” in the sense of the OP (which is just: more time/skills/influence). Sorry the examples aren’t as dramatic as you would like; unfortunately, I can’t think of more dramatic examples.
I had that problem too (from the commentary here, this lack of specific examples is the post’s biggest issue) -- whatever examples I could come up with seemed distinctly unspectacular.
However, I think avoiding common failure modes—being less wrong—is a decent way to increase the expected value of your power.
Unfortunately, it seems much easier to list particularly inefficient uses of time than particularly efficient uses of time :P I guess it all depends on your zero point.
I disagree.
1 and 2 are “negative”: avoiding common failure modes.
3 and 4 are “positive”: ways to get “more bang for your buck” than you “normally” would.
A list of useful things to do, or a list of effective ways to do something are not ways to get “power for cheap”.
Avoiding minor failure modes does not get you power. Getting a little bit more bang for your buck is still not “power for cheap”.
I was using “power” in the sense of the OP (which is just: more time/skills/influence). Sorry the examples aren’t as dramatic as you would like; unfortunately, I can’t think of more dramatic examples.
I had that problem too (from the commentary here, this lack of specific examples is the post’s biggest issue) -- whatever examples I could come up with seemed distinctly unspectacular.
However, I think avoiding common failure modes—being less wrong—is a decent way to increase the expected value of your power.
Unfortunately, it seems much easier to list particularly inefficient uses of time than particularly efficient uses of time :P I guess it all depends on your zero point.
I think that’s the point :-)