Obligatory note re: standing desk ergonomics: http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/CUESitStand.html
The lesson seems to be to mostly sit, but stand and walk around every 30-45 minutes or so.
bcoburn
Karma: 157
I think that the main difference between people who do and don’t excel at SC2 isn’t that experts don’t follow algorithms, it’s that their algorithms are more advanced/more complicated.
For example, Day[9]’s build order focused shows are mostly about filling in the details of the decision tree/algorithm to follow for a specific “build”. Or, if you listen to professional players talking about how they react to beginners asking for detailed build orders the response isn’t “just follow your intuition” it’s “this is the order you build things in, spend your money as fast as possible, react in these ways to these situations”, which certainly looks like an algorithm to me.
Edit: One other thing regarding practice: We occasionally talk about 10,000 hours and so on, but a key part of that is 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice”, which is distinguished from just screwing around as being the sort of practice that lets you generate explicit algorithms.
I actually see a connection between the two: One of the points in the article is to buy experiences rather than things, and Alicorn’s post seems to be (possibly among other things) a set of ways to turn things into experiences.
Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. It happens to be the case that this thing works for you. That is only very weak evidence that it works for anyone else at all. All humans are not the same.
We recommend getting over being insulted and frustrated when things that work for you specifically turn out to be flukes, it’s not a surprising thing and sufficiently internalizing how many actual studies turn out to be flukes would make it the obvious result. Reality shouldn’t be strange or surprising or insulting!
I’m not sure about the rest of the app, but the bookmarklet seems like a ridiculously good idea. The ‘trivial inconvenience’ of actually making cards for things is really brutal, anything that helps seems like a big deal.
Is there a good book/resource in general for trying to learn the meta-model you mention?
Of course, this is a straightforward problem to fix in the mechanism design: Just make responses to downvoted comments start at −5 karma, instead of having a direct penalty, as suggested elsewhere. I think that suggestion was for unrelated reasons, but it also fixes this little loophole.
it doesn’t give many actual current details, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_lithography implies that as of 2006 designing the photomask for a given chip required ~100 CPU years of processing, and presumably that has only gone up.
Etching a 22nm line with 193nm light is a hard problem, and a lot of the techniques used certainly appear to require huge amounts of processing. It’s close to impossible to say how much of a bottle neck this particular step in the process is, but based on how much really knowing what is going on in even just simple mechanical design requires lots of simulation I would actually expect that every step in chip design has similar types of simulation requirements.
also generates free time! generally just trying to walk between classes as fast as possible is probably good, if sprinting seems too scary.
Me as well.
Because it signals that you’re the sort of person who feels a need to get certifications, or more precisely that you thought you actually needed the certification to get a job. (And because the actual certifications aren’t taken to be particularly hard, such that completing one is strong evidence of actual skill)
More concisely than the original/gwern: The algorithm used by the mugger is roughly:
Find your assessed probability of the mugger being able to deliver whatever reward, being careful to specify the size of the reward in the conditions for the probability
offer an exchange such that U(payment to mugger) < U(reward) * P(reward)
This is an issue for AI design because if you use a prior based on Kolmogorov complexity than it’s relatively straightforward to find such a reward, because even very large numbers have relatively low complexity, and therefore relatively high prior probabilities.
So I don’t know about anyone else, but as far as I can tell my own personal true rejection is: It’s just too hard to remember to click over to predictionbook.com and actually type something in when I make a prediction. I’ve tried the things that seem obvious to help with this, but the small inconvenience has so far been too much
Do you have a specific recommendation for what the minimum for longevity actually is?
Three days doing three different high intensity weight bearing activities isn’t the best overall workout program but it is certainly viable and far more minimal. It would give acceptable (but less) muscle growth and far better cardio improvements.
Comes pretty close, but still leaves a little room for guesswork.
Just as an exercise, and mostly motivated by the IRC channel: Can anyone find a way to turn this post into a testable prediction about the real world?
In particular, it would be nice to have a specific way to tell the difference between “understanding the opposite sex is impossible” and “understanding the opposite sex is harder than the same sex” and “understanding types of people you haven’t been in enough contact with is hard/impossible”
You could also try dissolving the whole capsule in water, which might make measuring out specific fractions easier.
I think it’s pretty likely this is just a joke, not really some clever tactic
Just for the record, and in case it’s important in experiment planning, caffeine isn’t actually tasteless at all. has a fairly bitter and certainly easy to recognize taste dissolved in just water.
It is, however, really easy to mask in, for example, orange juice, so the taste shouldn’t make the experiments hard as such. Just another design constraint to be aware of.
I’d also recommend adding some sort of n days on, m days off cycling to your tests, mostly because that’s what I do and I want to take advantage of other people’s research.
Why does it need to be aim along the planet? Use orbital mechanics: Send your spacecraft on an orbit such that it hits the planet it launched from at the fast point of a very long elliptical orbit. Or even just at the far side of the current planet’s orbit, whatever. It can’t be that hard to get an impact at whatever angle you’d prefer with most of the Orion vehicle’s energy, launching direction barely seems to matter.
My first idea is to use something based on cryptography. For example, using the parity of the pre-image of a particular output from a hash function.
That is, the parity of x in this equation:
f(x) = n, where n is your index variable and f is some hash function assumed to be hard to invert.
This does require assuming that the hash function is actually hard, but that both seems reasonable and is at least something that actual humans can’t provide a counter example for. It’s also relatively very fast to go from x to n, so this scheme is easy to verify.