Self-explanatory title. The list is rather rambling and not terribly comprehensive, but I found it worthwhile nonetheless.
Here’s a summary, of sorts. OP also discusses what can be done about manipulation, in a way relevant for lesswrong.
Perhaps the key takeaway here is the useful word ‘pabulum’.
ping
Really fantastic that you started an effective charity! Everything about your approach is awesome. I hope the rest of your top 8 get test driven (by you or others) someday as well.
Generally I agree with the spreadsheeting concept. There’s also Guesstimate for when your weights and uncertainties are numerical.
I don’t think there’s a mailing list yet. We could move some or all of the meetups to evenings/weekends if there’s interest. Help me gather preferred times.
David_Kristoffersson has proposed a meetup this Friday. I’ve set it for 17:00 in light of your comment.
Yes, in the KTH computer science building.
Yes, it’s UTC+2. It’s 15:00 local time.
Awesome, thanks! Also, I’m glad to see there are lesswrongers about.
Houshalter
If that happened in the modern world, technological civilization might end and never be restarted. The modern world depends on hugely complex infrastructure and tons of different industries and inputs. If we lose that, it would be very difficult to rebuild. We’ve already extracted most of the easy to get to minerals and fossil fuels. Much farmland has been degraded from overuse and depends on inputs of fertilizer, irrigation systems, and of course modern machinery which would be difficult to replace.
skeptical_lurker
I agree. The end of technological civilization is a different point from simple mass casualties—if ‘only’ 40% of humanity dies, but those 40% are concentrated in first world countries and urban centres, would the survivors be able to rebuild? Machinery would continue to work for a while, although the oil distribution chain would break for a while at least, but in the long run machinery would break. The factories tend to be in the first world countries that have been nuked, the universities in the cities have been mostly destroyed. Moreover there would likely be a general luddite tendency to blame technology for the crisis. Its probably easier to restablish resource extraction then to restart scientific research, and so we would be less likely to develop renewable energy before the fossil fuels run out. I suppose the end of technological civiliseation would reduce the population back to medieval levels, although this would be a long process of resources slowly running out and machinery slowly degrading.
I’ve often heard claims like these and wonder what the exact date of regression would be. Suppose the low hanging fruit have been removed for a number of modern resources (oil, helium, fissionables, rare metals). We still have quite a lot of coal (in the US and Russia), wind, and hydro power for energy. We also have abundant common metals, which might be more accessible than before if civilization collapsed and left a bunch of scrap around. My understanding is that coal and modern smelting techniques with common metals get us to at least 1850. Furthermore, modern scientific knowledge can’t be significantly lost because this requires destroying virtually all books or other records. Hence I would expect at least some of humanity to never slip further back than this point.
I’m sort of nitpicking though. I agree that 40% dead could easily lead to 90% dead.
I disagree. Sure, research shows that memory formation is improved when you relax. If I want to remember a specific fact though, it helps me to mentally search for contextual clues around where I learned the fact.
Maybe I’m doing it wrong though—any research or convincing anecdotes on this?
How about these? They have 3 colors and don’t cycle.
That’s an interesting idea and yes, I think it would help. It seems you can find cable sleeves in this style, though I’m only seeing them in bulk.
For injuries
R> sum(sapply(seq((80-30), 0), function(t) { 5000 * 3.431544214e-09 * t * 0.97^t * 0.63 * 50000 })) # [1] 264.9444032
Rate should be 1.634253963e-08, yielding about $1261.78 lifetime loss.
This is a really great link!
If your resume lists sufficient credentials (high SAT scores or gpa, attending or graduated from a good college, or previous tutoring experience) it’s easy to get a job at a tutoring agency. They take a 50-70% cut of earnings, leaving you with $11-35/hr. There are many such agencies both for in-office and in-home, mostly 1-on-1. Agencies exist that focus on test-prep (preparing for the SAT, mostly), that focus on supplementing an existing class, or both. If you don’t have the credentials, it’s still worth a shot to apply.
Alternatively, you can advertise on WyzAnt, University Tutor, Craigslist, or put up fliers in the library and high school student centers. I never had the courage to put up fliers but I saw many, and the more experienced tutors I knew did this.
If you dig down 3 links you find the Commuter’s Paradox. I found this paper to use very reasonable controls and explain itself well. Sadly, it doesn’t address your question about different modes of transportation.
Strangeattractor has made many excellent points here. Let me add a bit:
StackOverflow has the most detailed data I’ve seen on features that make software jobs satisfying: http://stackoverflow.com/research/developer-survey-2016#work
The city you work in affects the salary pool that companies compete against with their offers. San Francisco, New York, and Seattle are much higher paid than other cities, and the USA is much higher paid than any other country. Big companies also pay more.
Lastly, apply to many companies simultaneously. If you have 2 or more offers, you can negotiate by telling each company “match or beat the other company”. This can lead to enormous increases in compensation. E.g.: http://haseebq.com/farewell-app-academy-hello-airbnb-part-ii/
Thanks. Not sure how I caused that, or how to fix it, so I’m deleting and reposting the link.