The clean lines make me think you didn’t use hypergeometric calculations. If I have 2 extrovert friends, on any given day 0 (25%), 1(50%), or 2(25%) of them will want to hang out. If I want to hang out on day N, there is a 25% chance I fail to.
Ericf
Karma: 1,150
Ericf’s Shortform
Virtually no-one differentiates between a 4 and a 5 on these kind of surveys. Either they are the kind of person who “always” puts 5, or they “never” do.
With Rat. Adjacent or other overthibkers, you can give more specific anchors (eg 5 = this was the best pairing). Or you can have specific unsealed questions (ie:
I would go to another room to avoid this person at a party
I do not want to see this person again
Whatever
If someone else did the work to plan it, I would show up and spend time with this person again
I will schedule time to see this person again.
Airline tickets are a bad example because they are priced dynamically. So if more people find/exploit the current pricing structure, the airline will (and does) shift the pricing slightly until it remains profitable.
+1 for substituting brain processes. High-g neurodivergents of all flavors tend to run apps in the “wrong” parts of their brain to do things that neutotypicals do automatically. Low-g neurodivergents just fail at the tasks.
Related content: https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=168
Por que no los dos? It’s a minority of people who have the ability and inclination to learn how to conform to a different mileu than thier natural state.
CK, as used here, seems more transactional and situation specific. Emotional Labor is usually referring to a pattern over time, including things like checking for unknown unknowns, and “making sure X gets done” Both ideas are playing in similar space.
Bonus points in a dating context: by being specific and authentic you drive away people who won’t be compatible. In the egg example, even if the second party knows nothing about the topic, they can continue the conversation with “I can barely boil water, so I always take a frozen meal in to work” or “I don’t like eggs, but I keep pb&j at my desk” or just swipe left and move on to the next match.
Follow up question: is this a permanent gain or temporary optimization (eg without further intervention, what scores would the subject get in 6 months?)
We know for sure that eating well and getting a good night’s sleep dramatically improves performance on a wide array of mental tasks. It’s not a stretch to think other interventions could boost short term performance even higher.
For further study: Did the observed increase represent a repeatable gain, or an optimization? Within-subject studies show a full SD variation between test sessions for many subjects, so I would predict that “a set of interventions” could produce a “best possible score” for an individual but hit rapid diminishing returns.
Communication bandwidth: if you find that you’re struggling to understand what the person is saying or get on the same page as them, this is a bad sign about your ability to discuss nuanced topics in the future if you work together.
Just pulling this quote out to highlight the most critical bit. Everything else is about distinguishing between BS and ability to remember, understand, and communicate details of an event (note: this is a skill not often found at the 100 IQ level). That second thing isn’t necessarily a job requirement for all positions (eg sales, entry level positions), but being comfortable talking with your direct reports is always critical.
The described “next image” bot doesn’t have goals like that, though. Can you take the pre-trained bot and give it a drive to “make houses” and have it do that? When all the local wood is used up, will it know to move elsewhere, or plant trees?
If you have to give it a task, is it really an agent? Is there some other word for “system that comes up with its own tasks to do”?
Note that you have reduced the raw quantity of dust specks by “a lot” with that framing. Heat death of universe is in “only” 10^106 years, so that would be no more than 2^ (10^(106)) people (if we somehow double every year) compared to 3||3^(27), which is 3^ (10^ (a number too big to write down))
200 years ago was 1824. So compared to buying land or company stocks (the London and NY stock exchanges were well established by then) or government bonds.
Narrator: gold has been a poor bet for 90% of the last 200 years.
(Don’t quote me on that, but it is true that gold was a good bet for about 10 years in recent memory, and a bad bet for most post-industrial time)
I can’t tie up cash in any sort of escrow, but I’d take that bet on a handshake.
Mr. Pero got fewer votes than either major party candidate. Not a ringing endorsement. And I didn’t say the chances were quite low, I said they were zero*. Which is at least 5 orders of magnitude difference from “quite low” so I don’t think we agree about his chances.
*technically odds can’t be zero, but I consider anything less likely than “we are in a simulation that is subject to intervention from outside” to be zero for all decision making purposes.
Years ago, I advocated banning crypto as a means of limiting the damage AI could do, thinking an advanced AI might be able to mine or hack exchanges (eg by guessing passwords of “lost” bitcoins) and accumulate wealth (ie power).
Apparent it could also just make a meme coin, and generate billions from nothing, given a sufficiently edgy coin (for example, AI itself)
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/19/donald-trump-crypto-billionaire
I am once again humbly suggesting that all un-regulated currency, especially distributed ledgers, be banned worldwide as a precautionary measure.