You could look into whether dragons exist with the plan that you will never reveal any findings no matter what they are. I get that you probably wouldn’t bother because most paths by which that information could be valuable require you to leak it, but it’s an option.
Orborde
Karma: 213
Mostly for @habryka’s sake: it sounds like you are likely describing your unvested equity, or possibly equity that gets clawed back on quitting. Neither of which is (usually) tied to signing an NDA on the way out the door—they’d both be lost simply due to quitting.
The usual arrangement is some extra severance payment tied to signing something on your way out the door, and that’s usually way less than the unvested equity.
EDIT: Turns out OpenAI’s equity terms are unusually brutal and it is indeed the case that the equity clawback was tied to signing the NDA.
Nope!
(DMed the most recent residents—they moved out at the end of the lease term about a month ago)
I was the co-game-master for 2018 Oxford/Seattle and had to make a call about whether the game-end launch was legit. Your telling is accurate—the guy who pressed the button indeed acted unilaterally and (he claims) thought the button was disabled.
Setting it all up was damned expensive: she died at ninety—about 70 years of redaction time multiplied by a typical human metabolic rate and mass landed you with a lot of redaction entropy. Look at the price of energy, convert the Kilowatt hours and it came to a lot of money. She had to set up an on-death remortgage of her home to cover it even with the subsidies.
A typical human consumes maybe 3000 kcal of food per day. Which is about 3.5 kWh. Current price for electricity in the US is about $0.17/kWh. Do all the math, and you get an electricity cost of about $20,000 for a 90-year reversal, if the reversal consumes close to the metabolic energy spent. Which doesn’t seem ridiculously expensive compared to what a human can save in their lifetime (ditto 10x that cost, if you imagine that it takes 10J to reverse the entropy of 1J of metabolism).
Are you imagining a much less efficient process?
I have sometimes considered this but worry that doing so will lower the cost of capital for AGI-constructing companies and accelerate AGI development.
I’m not sure this is a realistic concern for Google/Alphabet—I think they have not bothered to raise capital since the Google IPO and aren’t about to start.
The mechanics here are pretty similar to assassination markets.
Can you link to your comment?
My policy with microcovid from the very beginning has been to look at the numbers and basically ignore the “high risk / medium risk” designations, because they don’t match my risk tolerance and that divergence has only increased over the course of the pandemic (now that I’m vaccinated, 1 uCov is less costly because it carries less risk with it).
Not from the very beginning, but for most of this year this is how I’ve used microcovid.
+1
I finished at 11:44:16 AM and placed #193, and I didn’t really start until about 10:30AM. The puzzles were not very hard, so I infer that there were not a very large number of contenders.
I’m confused about this diagram. Is it plotting out activity preferences?
It looks like her objection is that the RaDVaC folks chose some pretty questionable peptides. Presumably you could simply order some different peptides, but I think you’ll run into the following problems:
You need to pick peptides that will, in the RaDVaC formulation, wind up folded similarly to their conformation in the live virus. I, personally, have no idea how to do that.
You don’t really have much evidence of immunogenicity for your new RaDVaC formulation and probably need to measure it again (my understanding is that the RaDVaC designers have done some immunogenicity measures in themselves, so the current formulation has some evidence of immunogenicity).
A medical worker who tried to sign up for vaccine administration recruitment was confronted with needing 21 pieces of paperwork showing that they had completed various trainings, many of which have nothing to do with vaccination.
Care to paste a source link?
Stress tests
Many systems get “spot-checked” by artificially forcing them into a rare but important-to-correctly-handle stressed state under controlled conditions where more monitoring and recovery resources are available (or where the stakes are lower) than would be the case during a real instance of the stressed state.
These serve to practice procedures, yes, but they also serve to evaluate whether the procedures would be followed correctly in a crisis, and whether the procedures even work.
Drills
Fire/tornado/earthquake/nuclear-attack drills
Military drills (the kind where you tell everyone to get to battle stations, not the useless marching around in formation kind)
Large cloud computing companies I’ve worked at need to stay online in the face of loss of a single computer, or a single datacenter. They periodically check to see that these failures are survivable by directly powering off computers, disconnecting entire datacenters from the network, or simply running through a datacenter failover procedure beginning to end to check that it works.
Current open market price of an asset
Public, highly liquid markets for assets create lots of information about the value of those assets, which is extremely useful for both individuals and firms that are trying to understand:
the state of their finances
how successful a venture dealing in those assets has been
whether to accept a deal (a financial transaction, or some cooperative venture) involving those assets
(if the assets are stock in some company) how successful the company has been so far
Preregistration of studies
it assumes that the Pigouvian tax is set to $100,000 instead of the opportunity cost of the pollution (in this case $50,000)
How are you calculating “opportunity cost”? Is it simply the land use conversion cost ($50,000)?
Posting because the title of this linkpost was a big surprise for me.
It already seems like we can infer that dragon-existence has, to you, nontrivial subjective likelihood because you don’t loudly proclaim “dragons don’t exist” and because you regard investigation as uncomfortably likely to turn you into a believer of something socially unacceptable.
If you think it’s in fact, like, 20% likely (a reasonable “nontrivial likelihood” guess for people to make), seems like the angry dragons-don’t-exist people should be 20% angry at you.