Oh, good. I got this too. With XOR. Contrary to other repliers, it seems to me like XOR is a simpler primitive than “the presence/absence of shapes forms a rectangle”. It’s more easily generalizable and doesn’t rely on the existence of other patterns. As a cute curiosity, by the way, the XOR-ing works both vertically and horizontally.
Bayeslisk
Karma: 280
Just here to remind you to notice when you are confused. If you don’t, this ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BOWOMPUbvE ) WILL happen to you and everyone WILL laugh. And you wouldn’t want that.
I was slightly late, unfortunately, but filled out the whole thing anyway.
Oh, cool. I’ve found the distinction to be a very useful one to make.
I don’t think I understand what you mean by privative. Is it something like the difference between “na’e” and “to’e” in Lojban? For reference: {mi na’e djica} would mean “I other-than want”, and {mi to’e djica} would mean “I opposite-of want”.
LW Adirondack? I’m from Albany, and would show up if the time was right. I’m away at college at the moment.
I filled in the form some time ago.
I am unfortunately engaged all that day and thus will be unlikely to be able to show up.
Hi there. Princeton LWist here. Me, 20%.
Thanks! I’ll have a read through this.
Can you give me some examples of what some people think constitutes Knightian uncertainty? Also: what do they mean by “you”? They seem to be postulating something supernatural.
That seems eminently exploitable and consequently extremely dangerous. Safety and unexpected delight lie in unpredictability.
These are both pretty much exactly what I’m thinking of! The feeling that someone (or you!) is/are a terrifyingly predictable black box.
In mine, too, at least for the first few seconds. Otherwise, knowing I had already responded a certain way, I would probably respond differently.
Sort of in the sense of human minds being more like fixed black boxes that one might like to think. What’s Knightian free will, though?
Has anyone else had one of those odd moments when you’ve accidentally confirmed reductionism (of a sort) by unknowingly responding to a situation almost identically to the last time or times you encountered it? For my part, I once gave the same condolences to an acquaintance who was living with someone we both knew to be very unpleasant, and also just attempted to add the word for “tomato” in Lojban to my list of words after seeing the Pomodoro technique mentioned.
The problem is that knowing how well you cook doesn’t really affect who should cook past a certain basic point of competence, as far as I can tell.
No, empty praise is still worthless, because Said’s cooking and baking not perfect, and there is with near certainty some small flaw, some awkward stylistic choice that could use improvement. Best is the gentle nitpicking of these flaws with a prepended (This is amazing, but) and with the consequent inference that the bread/food/what have you is actually already REALLY GOOD.
My downkarma stays. You really should have made this clear in your post, and you advocate for a departure from radical honesty even when that works, instead of discussing strategies for determining whether your interlocutor is ask, guess, or (gasp!) tell. This advocates an overly radical departure towards lies for anyone, and argues for defection on PD. It’s one thing to say that given people will lie, you should become skilled at it and learn to detect them; quite another to advocate that it should occur from the start.
On the advice of a new friend, I think that i will be coming to this, but will need some help navigating, since I currently live in Chicago and have been to Ann Arbor exactly once in my life 5 years ago.