I would always find people in aeroplanes less threatening than in trains. I wouldn’t imagine the person in the next seat mugging me, for example, whereas I would imagine it on a train.
What do other people think of strangers on a plane versus on a train?
Like RolfAndreassen said: please back the fuck off and leave others alone.
Please stop discouraging people from introducing themselves to me in circumstances where it would be welcome.
I now plan to split up long boring tasks into short tasks with a little celebration of completion as the reward after each one. I actually decided to try this after reading Don’t Shoot the Dog, which I think I saw recommended on Less Wrong. It’s got me a somewhat more productive weekend. If it does stop helping, I suspect it would be from the reward stopping being fun.
Getting back to post-scarcity for people who choose not to work, and what resources they would miss out on, a big concern would be not having a home. Clearly this is much more of a concern than drinks on flights. The main reason it is not considered a dire concern is that people’s ability to choose not to work is not considered that vital.
A second, hidden copy of himself could possibly use the time turner as soon as it was announced the ring was to be transfigured, and make sure Hermione was not in the ring, but I think Harry has better uses than that for as much time turning as he can get.
My first thought was that she’d been transfigured into the pajamas, but I don’t think that’s likely. My theory is that when Harry slept in his bed it was the second time he’d been through that time period. The first time, he stayed invisible with transfigured Hermione in his possession, waited until woken-up Harry had finished being searched, gave her to woken-up Harry, then went back in time and went to bed.
You can get microphones much smaller than 7 cm, and they can detect frequencies way lower than 20 kHz. There’s no rule saying you need a large detector to pick up a signal with a large wavelength.
Women famously say “sometimes I just want to be listened to. Don’t try to solve my problems, just show me that you care.”
I would interpret that as being specific to problems. There may also be women who would like feigned interest in dopey things they’re into, or they may prefer to just discuss them with their girlfriends who are actually interested.
When men do this, women say “yes, that’s what I’m talking about” and attempt to reinforce that behavior, perhaps unconsciously.
Explicitly saying this can be taken at face value, I think, but unconsciously reinforcing the behaviour may be meant to reinforce actual interested listening. You can’t deduce which is the true preference.
When I buy stuff from people I don’t know I’m mostly treating them as a means to an end. Not completely, because there are ways I’d try to be fair to a human that wouldn’t apply to a thing, but to a larger extent than I would want in personal / social relationships.
Another rule of thumb I kind of like is: don’t get people into interactions with you that they wouldn’t want if they knew what you were doing. I feel like that probably encourages erring too far on the side of caution and altruism. But if you know the other person would prefer you to empathise when not interested rather than be silent, leave or criticise, it’s allowed.
ETA: I’m interested in better guidelines, especially from people who get the distaste for manipulation.
Not that I know of, but Advogato’s trust metric limits the damage by a rogue endorser of many trolls with a calculation using maximum network flow. It doesn’t allow for downvotes.
If you allow downvoting and blocking all of someone’s nodes, that could be an incentive for the person to partition their publications into three pseudonyms, so that once the first is blocked, the others are still available.
That’s a good question. Here’s a definition of “fair” aimed at UDT-type thought experiments:
The agent has to know what thought experiment they are in as background knowledge, so the universe can only predict their counterfactual actions in situations that are in that thought experiment, and where the agent still has the knowledge of being in the thought experiment.
This disallows my anti-oneboxer setup here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/hqs/why_do_theists_undergrads_and_less_wrongers_favor/97ak (because the predictor is predicting what decision would be made if the agent knew they were in Newcomb’s problem, not what decision would be made if the agent knew they were in the anti-oneboxer experiment) but still allows Newcomb’s problem, including the transparent box variation, and Parfit’s Hitchhiker.
I don’t think much argument is required to show Newcomb’s problem is fair by this definition, the argument would be about deciding to use this definition of fair, rather than one that favours CDT, or one that favours EDT.
You penalise based on the counterfactual outcome: if they were in Newcomb’s problem, this person would choose one box.
The way I like to think about it is that convincingness is a 2-place function—a simulation is convincing to a particular mind/brain. If there’s a reasonably well-defined interface between the mind and the simulation (e.g. the 5 senses and maybe a couple more) then it’s cheating to bypass that interface and make the brain more gullible than normal, for example by introducing chemicals into the vat for that purpose.
From that perspective, dreams are not especially convincing compared to experience while awake, rather dreamers are especially convincable.
Dennett’s point seems to be that a lot of computing power would be needed to make a convincing simulation for a mind as clear-thinking as a reader who was awake. Later in the chapter he talks about other types of hallucinations.
I want to use one of those phrases in conversation. Either grfgvat n znq ulcbgurfvf be znxvat znq bofreingvbaf (spoilers de-rot13ed)
Also I found the creator’s page for the comic http://cowbirdsinlove.com/46
I followed the first link http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/9/2108.short and the abstract there had “After adjusting for age, BMI, total energy intake, exercise, alcohol intake, cigarette smoking, and family history of diabetes, we found positive associations between intakes of red meat and processed meat and risk of type 2 diabetes.”
And then later, “These results remained significant after further adjustment for intakes of dietary fiber, magnesium, glycemic load, and total fat.” though I’m not sure if the latter was separate because it was specifically about /processed/ meat.
So long as they keep the claim as modest as ‘eating red meat “may” increase your risk of type II diabetes.’ it seems reasonable. They could still be wrong of course, but the statement allows for that. I should note here that the study was on women over 45, not a general population of an area.
If there’s better evidence that the search is not finding, that is a problem.
Isn’t humour it’s own reward? What extra reinforcement system could you use to increase it?
Yes, I upvoted it as an interesting idea, but wouldn’t endorse actually putting it into practice.
I don’t think it would substitute for optometrist appointments, just for getting new glasses of the same prescription as you already had. For people who have had LASIK, had your glasses prescriptions been changing up until then? And did you vision continue to change afterwards?
As munchkinry, it’s pretty good, but I’m not taking this seriously enough to actually try it. It’s just a fun idea to me.
I think sitting really close beside someone I would be less likely to want to face them—it would feel too intimate.