Almost certainly, but the point that stationary counter-drones wouldn’t necessarily be in a symmetric situation to counter-counter-drones holds. Just swap in a different attack/defense method.
atucker
Karma: 2,915
I think that if you used an EMP as a stationary counter-drone you would have an advantage over drones in that most drones need some sort of power/control in order to keep on flying, and so counter-drones would be less portable, but more durable than drones.
From off site:
Energy and Focus is more scarce than Time (at least for me), Be Specific (somewhat on site, but whatever),
From on the site:
Mind Projection Fallacy, Illusion of Transparency, Trivial Inconveniences, Goals vs. Roles, Goals vs. Urges
Fair, but at least some component of this working in practice seems to be a status issue. Once we’re talking about awesomeness and importance, and the representativeness of a person’s awesomeness and the importance of what they’re working on, and how different people evaluate importance and awesomeness, it seems decently likely that status will come into play.
Good point, I did summarize a bit fast.
There’s two issues at hand, one asserting that you’re doing something that’s high status within your community, and asserting that your community’s goals are more important (and higher status) than the goals of the listener’s community.
If there’s a large inferential distance in justifying your claims of importance, but the importance is clear, then it’s difficult to distinguish you from say, cranks and conspiracy theorists.
(The dialogues are fairly unrealistic, but trying to gesture at the pattern)
A within culture issue:
“I do rocket surgery”
“I’m working on hard Brain Science problem X”
“Doesn’t Charlie work on X?”
“Yeah.”
“Are you working with Charlie on X?”
“No.”
“Isn’t Charlie really smart though?”
“Yep.”
“Are you saying that you’re really smart too?”
“No.”
“Why bother?”
Between cultures:
“I do Rocket Surgery”.
“That’s pretty cool. I’m trying to destroy the One Ring”.
“Huh?”
“Basically, I’m trying to destroy the power source for the dark forces that threaten everything anyone holds dear”.
“Shouldn’t Rocket Brain Surgery Science be able to solve that”?
“No. that’s a fundamentally flawed approach on this problem—the One Ring doesn’t have a brain, and you carry it around. If you look at—”
“So you’re looking for a MacGuffin?”
“No.”
I entirely agree with this point, but suspect that actually following this advice would make people uncomfortable.
Since different occupations/goals have some amount of status associated with them (nonprofits, skilled trades, professions) many people seem to take statements about what you’re working on to be status claims in addition to their denotational content.
As a result, working on something “outside of your league” will often sound to a person like you’re claiming more status than they would necessarily give you.
Textbooks replace each other on clarity of explanation as well as adherence to modern standards of notation and concepts.
Maybe just cite the version of an experiment that explains it the best? Replications have a natural advantage because you can write them later when more of the details and relationships are worked out.
If I were in London, or even within an hour or two of it, I would try to go to this.
“May your plans come to fruition”
I used to say that more when leaving megameetups or going on a trip or something. It has the disadvantage that you can’t say it very fast.
I also want a word/phrase that expresses sympathy but isn’t “sorry”.
Entirely agreed. Even if you more often than not get the same answers from fMRI and surveys, the fMRI externalizes the judgment of whether or not someone is empathizing/emotional/cognitive stating with regards to something else.
One might argue that we probably have a decent understanding of how well people’s verbal statements line up with different facts, but where this diverges from the neurological reality is interesting enough to be spending money on the chance of finding the discrepancies. If we don’t find them, that’s also fascinating, and is worth knowing about.
Taking for granted that what people say about themselves is accurate, but externalized measurement is also worthwhile for it’s own sake.
I think it would probably be worth going into a bit more about what delineates tacit rationality from tacit knowledge. Rationality seems to me to apply to things that you can reflect about, and so the concept of things that you can reflect about but can’t necessarily articulate seems weird.
For instance, at first it wasn’t clear to me that working at a startup would give you any rationality-related skills except insofar as it gives you instrumental rationality skills, which could possibly just be explained as better tacit knowledge—you know a bajillion more things about the actual details necessary to run a business and make things happening.
There’s actually a ton of non-tacit knowledge potential powerups from running a startup though! That probably even engage reflection!
For instance, a person could learn what it feels like when they’re about to be too tired to work for the rest of the day, and learn to stop before then so that they could avoid burnout. This would be a reflective skill (noticing a particular sensation of tiredness), and yet it would be nigh impossible to articulate (can you describe what it feels like to almost be unable to work well enough that I can detect it in myself?).
When evaluating the relationship between success and rationality it seems worth keeping in mind survivorship bias.
An interesting case is that Will Smith seems likely to be explicitly rational in a way that other people in entertainment don’t talk about—he’ll plan and reflect on various movie-related strategies so that he can get progressively better roles and box office receipts.
For instance, before he started acting in movies, he and his agent thought about what top-grossing movies all had in common, and then he focused on getting roles in those kinds of movies.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1689234,00.html
Marginal effort within the bounds of a consulting agency offering a service “tailored” to each school district.
I think the hard part of refitting the model would probably just be getting access to the data—beyond that it seems like a statistician or programmer would be able to just tell a computer how to minimize some appropriate cost function.
Something like most of the marginal effort is devoted to gathering the data, which presumably doesn’t require that much expertise relative to understanding the model in the first place.
Maybe slightly vary the parameters to make the model “new”? Like, fit it to data from that district, and it will probably be slightly different from “other” models.
Has anyone published data on the effectiveness of Bayesian prediction models as an educational intervention? It seems like that would be very helpful in terms of being able to convince school districts to give them a shot.
We’ve relocated to Sever 105.
Meetup : LessWrong/HPMoR Harvard
Same. I’d be interested in trying this for a bit starting after mid-May.
This distinction is just flying/not-flying.
Offense has an advantage over defense in that defense needs to defend against more possible offensive strategies than offense needs to be capable of doing, and offense only needs one undefended plan in order to succeed.
I suspect that not-flying is a pretty big advantage, even relative to offense/defense. At the very least, moving underground (and doing hydroponics or something for food) makes drones just as offensively helpful as missles. Not flying additionally can have more energy and matter supplying whatever it is that it’s doing than flying, which allows for more exotic sensing and destructive capabilities.