Yeah, these aren’t that bright. I get about 1900 lux at 3 feet from one of the linked panels, per my light meter, vs about 3000 lux from a vanity light bar with 8 100W-equivalent LED lightbulbs at the same distance.
Bakkot
Karma: 874
Thanks for sharing this! Do note that it’s significantly more expensive per lumen: the one linked maxes out at 6631 lumens, which is just over what you’d get from 4 100W-equivalent lightbulbs. It comes in a two-pack for $180, for a cost of (6631lm*2)/$180 = 74 lm/$. Compare 90+CRI 1600lm bulbs from Cree at about $8 each, for 200 lm/$.
Another way of putting this is that to get as many lumens as the original (single-strand) lumenator you’d need six of these panels, which would cost you about a thousand dollars and probably give you lower-quality light (CRI of 80 instead of 90).
I bought a pair anyway, though.
I think—I hope—we could discuss most of those without getting into the more culture war-y parts, if there were sufficiently strong norms against culture war discussions in general.
Maybe just opt-in rather than opt-out would be sufficient, though. That is, you could explicitly choose to allow CW discussions on your post, but they’d be prohibited by default.
I would strongly support just banning culture war stuff from LW 2.0. Those conversations can be fun, but they require disproportionately large amounts of work to keep the light / heat ratio decent (or indeed > 0), and they tend to dominate any larger conversation they enter. Besides, there’s enough places for discussion of those topics already.
(For context: I moderate /r/SlateStarCodex, which gets several thousand posts in its weekly culture war thread every single week. Those discussions are a lot less bad than culture war discussions on the greater internet, I think, and we do a pretty good job keeping discussion to that thread only, but maintaining both of these requires a lot of active moderation, and the thread absolutely affects the tone of the rest of the subreddit even so.)
Without commenting on the merits and costs of children at Solstice or how they ought to be addressed:
Having attended the East Bay solstice both this year and last, it was my impression that there was significantly more noise made by children during parts when the audience was otherwise quiet this year than there was last year. My recollection is hazy, but I’d guess it was maybe three to five times as much noise? In terms of number of distinct noisy moments and also volume.
This year I was towards the back of the room; last year I was closer to the front.
Note that the Bay Area Facebook event is private for technical reasons; here’s the LW thread as an alternative.
It is if we define a utility function with a strict failure mode for TotalSuffering > 0.
Yeah, but… we don’t.
(Below I’m going to address that case specifically. However, more generally, defining utility functions which assign zero utility to a broad class of possible worlds is a problem, because then you’re indifferent between all of them. Does running around stabbing children seem like a morally neutral act to you, in light of the fact that doing it or not doing it will not have an effect on total utility (because total suffering will remain positive)? If no, that’s not the utility function you want to talk about.)
Anyway, as far as I can tell, you’ve either discovered or reinvented negative utilitarianism. Pretty much no one around here accepts negative utilitarianism, mostly on the grounds of it disagreeing very strongly with moral intuition. (For example, most people would not regard it as a moral act to instantly obliterate Earth and everyone on it.) For me, at least, my objection is that I prefer to live with some suffering than not to live at all—and this would be true even if I was perfectly selfish and didn’t care what effects my death would have on anyone else. So before we can talk usefully about this, I have to ask: leaving aside concerns about the effects of your death on others, would you prefer to die than to live with any amount of suffering?
Good catch. Don’t think I’m going to change the behavior, as there’s complex cases where there’s no obvious behavior: suppose you have a highly upvoted comment, whose parent and grandparent are both below the threshold. Do you color it in the widget differently from its parents? Do you expand both its parent and grandparent when it’s clicked on, in order that it be on the page and thus scrollable to? Do you mark its parent somehow so the reader knows that comment wouldn’t normally have been displayed?
So I think I’m OK with clicking on a comment which is hidden doing nothing. It’s maybe worth greying out such comments in the list, so as not to confuse people when nothing happens, but I feel like this mostly just ends up highlighting them, so I’m not going to put that in the main script. If you want that feature, though, I pushed it to an alternative branch on the github repo, and you can find it here. Comments will remain greyed even if you’ve un-hidden their parents, but will become scrollable to.
Huh. Try the most recent version (as of just now).
The way it currently works—at least, the way I designed it, and the way it seems to work for me—is that it doesn’t remember anything between visits, but rather determines which comments are new since your last visit by looking at the highlight provided by LW’s server. If there were comments made since your last visit, they should be highlighted with or without the script; no custom highlighting will be performed until you manually change the timestamp.
If you aren’t seeing new comments highlighted, it’s (almost certainly) because LW isn’t highlighting them—maybe you’re logged out, or loaded the page elsewhere, or have never visited the page? [In this way the LW script differs from the SSC script, because the LW server regards “never visited” as “nothing new” whereas my SSC script regards “never visited” as “everything new”.]
The reason I did it this way is that LW, unlike SSC, is itself keeping a record of which comments are new since your last visit, which works even if you loaded the page on another computer (but the same account). I didn’t want to mess with the built-in mechanism, only allow you to change it per-visit if necessary.
Ah. That’s much more work, since there’s no way of knowing if there’s new comments in such a situation without fetching all of those pages. I might make that happen at some point, but not tonight.
It seems to work for me. “Continue this thread” brings you to a new page, so you’ll have to set the time again, is all. Comments under a “Load more” won’t be properly highlighted until you click in and out of the time textbox after loading them.
Don’t refresh—just hit enter, or otherwise defocus the textbox (click anywhere else on the page, or hit tab). It’ll apply automatically and only lasts while the page is loaded; the time you enter doesn’t get saved when you reload.
LW client-side comment improvements
“Install the extension” is a link bringing you to the chrome web store, where you can install it by clicking in the upper-right. The link is this, in case it’s Github giving you trouble somehow.
If the Chrome web store isn’t recognizing that you’re running Chrome, that’s probably not a thing I can fix, though you could try saving this link as something.user.js, opening chrome://extensions, and dragging the file onto the window.
Just tested this on a clean FF profile, so it’s almost certainly something on your end. Did you successfully install the script? You should’ve gotten an image which looks something like this, and if you go to Greasemonkey’s menu while on a LW thread, you should be able to see it in the list of scripts run for that page. Also, note that you have to refresh/load a new page for it to show up after installation.
Oh, and it only works for new comments, not new posts. It should look something like this, and similarly for replies.
ETA: helpful debugging info: if you can, let me know what page it’s not working on, and let me know if there’s any errors in the developer console (shift-control-K or command-option-K for windows and Mac respectively).
I’m curious what you used instead (cookies?), or did you just make a historyless version? Also, why did you need that? localStorage isn’t exactly a new feature (hell, IE has supported it since version 8, I think).
I wrote a userscript / Chrome extension / zero-installation bookmarklet to make finding recent comments over at Slate Star Codex a lot easier. Observe screenshots. I’ll also post this next time SSC has a new open thread (unless Yvain happens to notice this).
Nitpick: you mean U+FE0E, presumably [and because that’s what the character actually is in source]. U+FE0F is the exact opposite.