TraderJoe

• TraderJoeNov 6, 2012, 10:35 AM

  23 points

  on: 2012 Less Wrong Cen­sus/​Survey

  Next year the survey should include an option to explain why your IQ is actually higher than was measured.

• TraderJoeNov 6, 2012, 8:45 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Prevent­ing dis­cus­sion from be­ing wa­tered down by an “end­less Septem­ber” user in­flux.

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeNov 5, 2012, 12:43 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: Kindly’s comment on: Prevent­ing dis­cus­sion from be­ing wa­tered down by an “end­less Septem­ber” user in­flux.

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeNov 5, 2012, 10:45 AM

  6 points

  on: Deal­ing with trol­ling and the sig­nal to noise ratio

  Surely this makes it very tough for a non-trolling user to figure out what was wrong with his post? Few people are going to explain it to him. You need to be familiar with LW jargon before you can expect to write a technical comment and not be downvoted for it, so this would very easily deter a lot of new users. “These guys all downvoted my post and nobody will explain it to me. Jerks. I’ll stick to rationalwiki.”

• TraderJoeNov 5, 2012, 10:41 AM

  2 points

  in reply to: Furslid’s comment on: Vot­ing is like donat­ing thou­sands of dol­lars to charity

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeNov 5, 2012, 10:12 AM

  4 points

  in reply to: richardlitt’s comment on: 2012 Less Wrong Cen­sus/​Survey

  I took the survey before. It. Was. Cool!

• TraderJoeNov 5, 2012, 10:11 AM

  32 points

  on: 2012 Less Wrong Cen­sus/​Survey

  Taken it. Suggestion [if it’s possible to change] - we should add the option to unanswer an answered question. Right now you can change your answer from A to B, but not from A to non-A and non-B.

• TraderJoeNov 5, 2012, 8:15 AM

  0 points

  on: Vot­ing is like donat­ing thou­sands of dol­lars to charity

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeNov 2, 2012, 1:03 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: PeerInfinity’s comment on: The Fun­da­men­tal Question

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeNov 2, 2012, 9:31 AM

  0 points

  on: Ra­tion­al­ity Les­sons Learned from Ir­ra­tional Ad­ven­tures in Romance

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeOct 23, 2012, 9:45 AM

  4 points

  on: 2012 Less Wrong Cen­sus Sur­vey: Call For Cri­tiques/​Questions

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeOct 12, 2012, 7:34 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: TimS’s comment on: Rais­ing the fore­cast­ing wa­ter­line (part 1)

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeOct 11, 2012, 10:44 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: CCC’s comment on: Rais­ing the fore­cast­ing wa­ter­line (part 1)

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeOct 11, 2012, 6:40 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Rais­ing the fore­cast­ing wa­ter­line (part 1)

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeOct 10, 2012, 5:54 PM

  4 points

  in reply to: FAWS’s comment on: Rais­ing the fore­cast­ing wa­ter­line (part 1)

  Sure, but how often do you see each of the following sentences in some kind of logic discussion: 2+2=3 2+2=4 2+2=5 2+2=6 2+2=7

  I have seen the first and third from time to time, the second more frequently than any other, and virtually never see 2+2 = n for n > 5. Not all statements are shown with equal frequency. My guess is that the percentage of the time when “2+2 = x” is written in contexts where the statement is for a true/​false logic proposition rather than an equation x = 4 is more common than all other values put together.

• TraderJoeOct 10, 2012, 5:49 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: TraderJoe’s comment on: Rais­ing the fore­cast­ing wa­ter­line (part 1)

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeOct 10, 2012, 5:48 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: TheOtherDave’s comment on: Rais­ing the fore­cast­ing wa­ter­line (part 1)

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeOct 10, 2012, 10:24 AM

  2 points

  on: Rais­ing the fore­cast­ing wa­ter­line (part 1)

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeOct 9, 2012, 7:04 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: Jack’s comment on: You Be the Jury: Sur­vey on a Cur­rent Event

  [comment deleted]

• TraderJoeOct 9, 2012, 7:03 AM

  0 points

  in reply to: Cecil’s comment on: You Be the Jury: Sur­vey on a Cur­rent Event

  [comment deleted]