The next morning, both stations charge $1.52. The morning after that, $1.53. The morning after that, $1.54, and so on. Later that year, CF reasons as follows: If I keep my current price of $20...
How long are years on Townton’s planet? Or is the Schelling price increase path nonlinear?
I’m sure this has been discussed before, but my attempts at searches for those discussions failed, so...
Why is this thread in Main and not Discussion?
“We have what replicated better; noise permanently affects replicative ability”?
Between people like us, this is somewhere between a failure to allow for the looseness of speech and the kind of interesting contradiction we like because it’s evidence-rich, and probably closer to the former. To a religious person, this is just a pretty combative trap. There are a large number of such traps you can run on religious people, and they very rarely accomplish anything, because these almost always aren’t the kind of people who take logic and rationality seriously enough to change their beliefs due to contradictions, but they normally are the kind of people who fail to Keep Their Identity Small and hence become personally offended when you try to bring up contradictions. Asking the philosophers he’s going to see trap questions like this will just annoy them (they’ll probably even see the “looseness of speech” explanation for this one), provoke useless stock answers, and waste the potential of the conversations.
There’s the obvious “Harry appears to be about to destroy the universe; Voldemort might be trying to stop him” one. But I don’t know any real answers to your question.
One time when I had a particularly large amount of biochemistry facts to study for a test the next morning I thought it might help my memory if I kept re-transcribing them, rephrasing them completely each time. I did well on the test, but not above my usual performance (then again, it was over more material than usual). I never tried this again; it was never necessary… but I am kind of curious if it really works.
Then I’d say that while your education and medical care ideas are good, they fail to account for the world-as-it-is. It’s easy to imagine a world-as-it-should-be, especially if you assume that people/society are different. It’s not enough. You have to design a smooth transition from a world-as-it-is to the world-as-it-should-be.
This seems unfair; it’s an April Fool’s joke/rant. It wasn’t intended to lay out a complete path to fixing the world. (Also, “I had to quixotically try to start Earth down the 200-year road to the de’a’na est shadarak”...)
This post lowers my estimate of your sanity waterline
Mine too, but not significantly. Everyone’s allowed a few mistakes, and I kinda dismissed the specifics of the real estate system as not the main point—the main point is that a world run by people who approached actual rationality, looking closely at what would actually benefit people and actively trying to avoid suboptimal Nash equilibria, would be pretty damn good compared to what we have now.
I decided I should actually read the paper myself, and… as of page 7, it sure looks like I was misrepresenting Aaronson’s position, at least. (I had only skimmed a couple Less Wrong threads on his paper.)
Again, I’m not a good choice for an explainer of this stuff, but you could try http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1438
Knightian uncertainty is uncertainty where probabilities can’t even be applied. I’m not convinced it exists. Some people seem to think free will is rescued by it; that the human mind could be unpredictable even in theory, and this somehow means it’s “you” “making choices”. This seems like deep confusion to me, and so I’m probably not expressing their position correctly.
Reductionism could be consistent with that, though, if you explained the mind’s workings in terms of the simplest Knightian atomic thingies you could.
This doesn’t seem related to reductionism to me, except in that most reductionists don’t believe in Knightian free will.
While this is also what came to my mind, the next thing that came to my mind was that this is exactly what the kind of communication failure So8res was worried about would look like.
This is a bit off-topic/already guarded against by your disclaimer, but if black takes the pawn after white takes the knight (the single move from that node of the given tree), black will lose the bishop and the rook immediately, and the game very soon.
I used to do this, but the crises made it exceptionally difficult to get the checkerboard pattern right.
I’m having trouble parsing the version with “agree” to anything simultaneously non-tautologous (i.e. when we use a name, we generally agree with our own usage) and reasonable; what reading did you notice?
This is the reason my bot attempted to recognize itself. Attention anyone who plays in a tournament that continues to use this bot pool: put the token LightninRoy in your source!
I still don’t see where set! is relevantly different from define… e.g.
(define result (if (random 100) 'C ((eval opponent) self)))
Ah, mutation in the “mutable state” sense. When I was doing some light experimenting with static analysis in the early days of the contest, I looked for variables storing anything involving eval (or involving another variable storing anything involving eval, etc.), and just treated (sounds like that should be “trought” or something) set! calls as define calls—another chance for a variable to become contaminated with evalness. Could you give an example of a case where set! makes things harder to analyze?
In a pool with a sufficient number of close-to-mimicbots, considering use of language features you didn’t anticipate or can’t handle to be defections seems like a good way to get too many mutual defections to win.
Also, not sure what “mutation” means in context. If you mean “almost quine yourself, but write in a few differences”, N did that; I can’t think of any other reasonable meanings which N does. I used namespace-set-variable-value! merely so that eval could see my variables; in most lisps I’ve used in the past I could have omitted it entirely.
i.e., young people are most likely to have the least complicated views on abortion!