This one felt quite LW-relevant:
If $1 million makes you happy, that doesn’t mean $10 million will make you 10 times as happy.
It’s good to be reminded now and then that dollars are not, in fact, utilons.
cupholder
Karma: 839
The lack of an automatic repair mechanism makes things hairier, but while frozen, the radiation damage will be localized to the cells that get hit by radiation. By the time you get the tech to revive people from cryonic freezing, you’ll most likely have the tech to fix/remove/replace the individual damaged cells before reviving someone. I think you’re right that radiation won’t be a big limiting factor, though it may be an annoying obstacle.
I don’t know so much about C-14, but wouldn’t potassium decay’s effects be small on timescales ~10,000 years? The radioactive natural isotope K-40 has a ridiculously long half life (1.25 billion years, which is why potassium-argon dating is popular for dating really old things) and only composes 0.012% of natural potassium. Potassium’s also much less abundant in the body than carbon—only about 140g of a 70kg person is potassium, although admittedly it might be more concentrated in the brain, which is the important part.
ETA—I did calculations, and maybe there is a problem. Suppose 0.012% of K is K-40 by mass. Then I get 0.0168 grams of K-40 in a body, which comes out as 0.00042 moles, 2.53e20 K-40 atoms. With a 1.25 billion year half life that makes 1.40e15 decays after 10,000 years. In absolute terms that’s a lot of emitted electrons and positrons. I don’t know whether the absolute number (huge) or the relative number (miniscule) is more important though.
This is a nice example of the slipperiness I sometimes notice when I think about how one could test an ev. psych hypothesis. My first thought after reading your comment was ‘but won’t all those factors be just as correlated with unhappiness and depression as with genetic fitness? Surely there’s a less complex explanation here: unhappy people don’t like living as much, so they try killing themselves more.’
Then I thought a little more and realized that could also have an ev. psych basis: maybe we evolved to kill ourselves more when we’re unhappy with life. But that’s a different ev. psych argument than ‘we evolved to kill ourselves more when we have low genetic fitness.’ Or is it? Maybe we evolved to kill ourselves more when we’re unhappy because unhappiness correlates with low genetic fitness? What would it even mean in concrete terms for all of these possible evolutionary explanations to be false?
‘Why would I need to demand evidence? My wife freely gives me evidence of her love, all the time!’
Maybe the salesman mostly sells temporary life insurance, and just means that no clients had died while covered?
I’m sorry, this is just an open thread comment, not a top-level post. Aren’t we allowed to just chat and get feedback without thoroughly contemplating a subject?
There’s nobody compelling you to reply to the comments you feel are too thoroughly contemplating a subject.
Who’s right? Who knows. It’s a fine opportunity to remain skeptical.
Bullshit. The ‘skeptical’ thing to do would be to take 30 seconds to think about the theory’s physical plausibility before posting it on one’s blog, not regurgitate the theory and cover one’s ass with an I’m-so-balanced-look-there’s-two-sides-to-the-issue fallacy.
TV-frequency EM radiation is non-ionizing, so how’s it going to transfer enough energy to your cells to cause cancer? It could heat you up, or it could induce currents within your body. But however much heating it causes, the temperature increase caused by heat insulation from your mattress and cover is surely much greater, and I reckon you’d get stronger induced currents from your alarm clock/computer/ceiling light/bedside lamp or whatever other circuitry’s switched on in your bedroom. (And wouldn’t you get a weird arrhythmia kicking off before cancer anyway?)
(As long as I’m venting, it’s at least a little silly for Kottke to say he’s posting it because it’s ‘interesting’ and not because it’s ‘right,’ because surely it’s only interesting because it might be right? Bleh.)
Does the lack of a response from EY imply that he’s not interested in that sort of change and, if so, is it EY who would be the one to make the decision?
I wouldn’t read anything into the lack of response, EY often doesn’t comment on meta-discussion. In fact I’d guess there’s a good chance he hasn’t even seen this thread!
I guess it might be worth raising this in the Spring 2010 meta-thread? Come to think of it, it’s been 4+ months since that meta thread was started—it may even be worth someone posting a Summer 2010 meta-thread with this as a topic starter.
I had a houseguest for a few days recently, a long-time reader who has only written a handful of comments, and I commented to him that the quality of discussion on LW is worse than it has ever been, and his reply was, “Well, yeah if you are talking about WrongBot.”
I think your houseguest might not have read a representative selection of LW posts; their assessment doesn’t ring true for me. I haven’t read WrongBot’s top-level posts closely (nothing personal—the evolutionary psychology stuff just isn’t that interesting to me), but I’ve skimmed through the resulting threads/comments on them as they’ve passed through Recent Comments, and they honestly don’t look all that bad.
I can think of a few recent posts/discussion topics that I am fairly confident have lower quality than WrongBot’s:
Daniel_Burfoot’s quite rambling series of posts that uses 7000 words just to talk up data compression as an add-on to the scientific method
whpearson’s bit of evolutionary psychology ‘Summer vs Winter Strategies’
MBlume’s link to ‘Jinnetic Engineering’ - the content is good, but it’s not meaty enough for a top-level post IMO
the string of posts a while back dancing around the Sleeping Beauty puzzle and what it meant—there was a lot of good in them, and their comments, but the discussions got really flabby really fast
Enthusiastically seconded.
The only change I’d make is to hide editorial comments when the post leaves editing (instead of deleting them), with a toggle option for logged-in users to carry on viewing them.
Unfortunately, most of the busy smart people only looked at the posts after editing, while the trolls and people with too much free time managed the edit queue, eventually destroying the quality of the site and driving the good users away. It might be possible to salvage that model somehow, though.
I think it is. There are several tricks we could use to give busy-smart people more of a chance to edit posts.
On Kuro5hin, if I remember right, posts left the editing queue automatically after 24 hours, either getting posted or kicked into the bit bucket. Also, users could vote to push the story out of the queue early. If Less Wrong reimplemented this system, we could raise the threshold for voting a story out of editing early, or remove the option entirely. We could even lengthen the period it spends in the editing stage. (This would also have the advantage of filtering out impatient people who couldn’t wait 3 days or whatever for their story to post.)
LW’s also just got a much smaller troll ratio than Kuro5hin did, which would help a lot.
Upvoted for raising the topic, but the approach I’d prefer is jimrandomh’s suggestion of having all posts pass through an editorial stage before being posted ‘for real.’
I’m open to suggestions for how I might improve the introduction to the article to make the article more palatable.
I was going to suggest this, but I see you’ve already added it: thanks for editing in your definition of capitalism at the top of the post. When I first read the post, that was something I thought would improve it. Like SilasBarta I thought it was a bad idea to leave unclear what you were counting as capitalism.
I think that’s a clever idea that deserves more eyeballs.
Done. I’m looking forward to either Nancy’s substantive reply and apology, or your concession that the issue might be a bit more complicated.
It seems to me that the issue’s already been complicated because you’ve already replied to Nancy impolitely. Now that’s happened, it is not really realistic to expect a substantive reply and apology from her simply because you (I, if we’re being pedantic) rephrased some of your original remarks more tactfully.
Okay, but the part Nancy ignored when she replied bore directly on (and obviated!) her comment, so she shouldn’t have replied to begin with if that was all she had to say. The general point of yours (which I agree with) about the impossibility of replying to everything, doesn’t apply.
OK; it sounds like I misinterpreted your earlier comment about ‘people complain that …’ as being directed at me, but based on your reply it sounds like it isn’t. In which case feel free to disregard the last paragraph of my grandparent comment.
The rudeness is in how she completely ignores the explanation I just gave in the parent comment, of why wide feet would lead to people being prejudiced against you, which obviates her question.
There’s no explicit question in the comment of NL’s I think you’re thinking of, so I imagine you mean that the statements in her comment could be read as implying an already-answered question, which makes the comment rude. That hardly registers on my rudeness detector; unless it’s part of a systematic pattern of behavior, it’s innocuous IMO.
Still, let me pretend I’m SilasBarta and suppose her comment is rude.
So:
1) I explain why having wide feet leads to people being prejudiced against me.
2) Nancy replies, while ignoring the entire explanation I just gave.
3) [Insert comment I should have made instead of the one I did, which would point out how Nancy just ignored the explanation I gave, but which you don’t characterize as obnoxious]OK, I’m SilasBarta. Nancy’s replied to me. Most of my comment seems to have gone right past her and she’s replied without having understood me. That means I have failed to make myself as clear to her as I’d like, and I want to fix that. It’s her first reply to me, she’s not being overtly confrontational, and people often write sloppily when replying to others on the Internet, so let’s assume good faith. As such, I reply to emphasize my more detailed explanation of how people with wide feet suffer prejudice, this time without any snitty rhetorical questions (or accusations of bad faith). I might write something like: ‘Let me clarify. Although people with wide feet may not suffer much direct prejudice, they nonetheless suffer effective prejudice indirectly because it hurts my ability to signal via e.g. choice of shoes, as I pointed out in my earlier comment.’
The reason I belabor the point is that this issue comes up quite frequently, where people complain that “Yeah, Silas, you had a good point, but goshdarnit, the way you said it gives me sufficient pretense to ignore it wholesale and join the anti-Silas’s point bandwagon”, and I want someone to finally put their neck out and show me what comment would be an appropriate one to protest the (rude) ignoring of part of my comment when someone replies to it.
I don’t believe I did use the way you said what you said as a pretense for ignoring its good points. I do think you might have been right when you tried picking out the pity-oriented subtext of NL’s original post, but just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean I ignored it wholesale—it just means I didn’t have anything to say in response to it. There are a lot of comments on Less Wrong that make good points—presented abrasively or otherwise—that I don’t reply to. (Also, I wouldn’t even have complained to you if you hadn’t solicited feedback on why people had voted down your original run of comments.)
I don’t think I’m capable of answering that question, since I’m not seeing the ‘rudeness’ in the parent comment posted by Nancy to which your linked comment replies. At any rate, I didn’t find that particular comment of yours obnoxious except for the ‘pity party’ snark, which I basically just wrote off as your usual level of prickliness.
Did you find it obnoxious when Nancy outright ignored the part of the comment where I explained why having wide feet would lead to others being prejudiced against you? Or just the fact of me mentioning this ignoranc … er, “act of ignoring”.
Neither. I found the manner in which you mentioned it obnoxious, not the mention qua mention.
This is what always gets me: no one cares when someone doesn’t read a comment and yet still replies to it—well, to a version of it. Yet when someone points out the rudeness of doing so—well, then that person’s just a terrorist!
You are mistaken. I’m not objecting to your pointing out that NL didn’t acknowledge your comment as you wanted her to. I’m objecting to the claim that she replied with a ‘pretense of ignorance.’
What gives? If you’re going to criticize just one of those two, which one has priority?
The one that employs immoderate hyperbole and launches an ill-grounded accusation of ‘pretense’ at someone else.
Reaching?