Does anyone know of a place to just buy one of those belts that tells you which way north is? I’ve looked and can’t find such a thing.
Am therefore probably going to just make one, are there other things that it’d be useful to sense in a similar way? The first thing I think of is just the time, but maybe there’s something better?
“Improvement” is probably the literal translation, but it’s used to mean the “Japanese business philosophy of continuous improvement”, the idea of getting better by continuously making many small steps.
Two things: What sort of time commitment/week would you expect for this?
the link in edit2 points to http://lesswrong.com/evidenceworksremote.com/courses instead of http://evidenceworksremote.com/courses which is presumably what it should be
Following up on this, I wondered what it’d take to emulate a relatively simple processor with as many normal transistors as your brain has neurons, and when we should get to that assuming Moore’s Law hold. Also assuming that the number of transistors needed to emulate something is a simple linear function of the number of transistors in the thing you’re emulating. This seems like it should give a relatively conservative lower bound, but is obviously still just a napkin calculation. The result is about 48 years, and the math is:
Where all numbers are taken from Wikipedia, and the random 2 in the second equation is the Moore’s law years per doubling constant.
I’m not sure what to make of this number, but it is an interesting anchor for other estimates. That said, this whole style of problem is probably much easier in an FPGA or similar, which gives completely different estimates.
I don’t know for sure either way, and can’t think of an experimental way to check off hand. I don’t think that heating is likely to do anything to the other components of most drinks, and you might be able to make a better guess with domain knowledge I don’t have.
I think ethanol will generally evaporate more quickly than water, so you might also be able to get a similar test by simply closing one portion into a container with only a little air, and leaving another open for a long enough time, overnight maybe. will still lose some water, which is I guess a more real problem with heating as well.
shrug, the details weren’t really the point, just wanted to emphasize the idea of thinking of ways to test whatever you’re interested in physically instead of just reasoning about it.
it’s not quite trivial to actually measure, but total tabs opened in the last, say, hour is probably a better measurement than how many you have open right now.
After writing that I started thinking “maybe a large number of tabs open with a slow turnover/new tabs opening rate doesn’t even correlate at all with procrastination”, but I suspect that’s just me coming up with excuses for things and isn’t actually true. Could try measuring both if the survey actually works, shrug.
Also really badly needs to be applied to itself. So many words!
It does dissolve reasonably into water, but tastes pretty terrible. Can dilute it with fruit juice if that’s a problem, or just ignore it.
I don’t know how well it works in games with only 1 scum player, but with at least two just the fact that there are two players who know they each have a partner changes their behavior enough that the game isn’t random. There’s also some change in what people say just because each side has a different win condition, although again this is less true with just one scum player.
As just a simple example, when you’re playing as the scum it can be really hard (at least for me) to make a good argument that someone I know is a normal villager isn’t, which can be enough for another player to deduce my role.
You could. Or you could just refuse to get into arguments about politics/philosophy. Or you could find a social group such that these things aren’t problems.
I certainly don’t have amazing solutions to this particular problem, but I’m fairly sure they exist.
To everyone who just read this and is about to argue with the specific details of the bullet points or the mock argument:
Don’t bother, they’re (hopefully) not really the point of this.
Focus on the conclusion and the point that LW beliefs have a large inferential distance. The summary of this post which is interesting to talk about is “some (maybe most) LW beliefs will appear to be crackpot beliefs to the general public” and “you can’t actually explain them in a short conversation in person because the inferential distance is too large”. Therefore, we should be very careful to not get into situations where we might need to explain things in short conversations in person.
This is, indeed, exactly what happened.
“Sweat” here is a standin for generic effort, whether it’s actual physical sweat or not depends on what exactly you’re training for.
A relatively simple way to test whether you actually like the taste of alcohol specifically: take a reasonable quantity of your favorite alcoholic beverage, beer/wine/mixed drink/whatever, and split it into two containers. Close one, and heat the other slightly to evaporate off most of the actual ethanol. Then just do a blind taste test. This does still require not lying to yourself about which you prefer, but it removes most of the other things that make knowing whether you like the taste hard.
I personally don’t care enough to try this, but just the habit of thinking “how could I test this?” is good.
Mandatory link on cryonics scaling that basically agrees with Eliezer:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2f5/cryonics_wants_to_be_big/
Why do we even care about what specifically Eliezer Yudkowsky was trying to do in that post? Isn’t “is it more helpful to try to find the simplest boundary around a list or the simplest coherent explanation of intuitions?” a much better question?
Focus on what matters, work on actually solving problems instead of trying to just win arguments.
This isn’t even related to the law of large numbers, which says that if you flip many coins you expect to get close to half heads and half tails. This is as opposed to flipping 1 coin, where you expect to always get either 100% heads or 100% tails.
I personally expected that P(AI) would drop-off roughly linearly as n increased, so this certainly seems counter-intuitive to me.
It depends on what you’re trying to do, working in bad conditions/under pressure is good for training but bad for actually getting things done. Ironically this seems to mean that you should work harder to have good conditions when you’re under more time pressure/in a worse situation overall.
This one really needs to have been applied to itself, “short is good” is way better.
(also this was one of EY’s quotes in the original rationality quotes set, http://lesswrong.com/lw/mx/rationality_quotes_3/ )
In a situation this specific, it seems to me to be worthwhile to reply exactly once, in order to inform other readers. Don’t expect to change the troll’s opinion, but making one comment in order to prevent them from accidentally convincing other people seems worthwhile.