I meant, “in the comments of the new article”. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.
The goal was to get some discussion and new advice going, and that’s difficult if you just link to the old repository, which means one more click on the way, one trivial inconvenience more.
I had thought about copying all the advice (or the good pieces only) over to the old repository once this one is obsolete, i.e. once the rerun repository for march is posted, and I might do this then, if I find the time.
Then he should give reasons why that’s possible. As it is, it seems to me like he is simply ignoring the math behind ageing. The following would be a better argument, IMO:
The Gompertz law describes human mortality as it currently is. It says that human mortality over time increases more than exponentially. To defy the Gompertz law, bold steps are necessary. Constant maintenance via external drugs that do what our immune system currently does or re-setting our immune system to a younger age may be necessary, as well as keeping the length of our telomers constant without inducing cancer, to break the hard limit set by the Gompertz curve.
Compare:
Radioactive decay is exponential and not linear. That is partly what makes nuclear waste take so long to disappear: Atomic decay is a random process, and even after a few half-lives, some radiation remains. And it gets worse: Many waste products have very long lifetimes, so their radioactivity stays around even when short-lived products are all gone. But researchers have found a solution: They bombard radioactive atoms with other nuclear particles, inducing them to decay much faster. The only weakly radioactive products can be safely extracted. In effect, this process overcomes the limiting math of radioactive decay, enabling linear decay rates and quick decay of long-lived fission products.
the probability of a 25-year-old dying before their 26th birthday is 0.1%. If we could keep that risk constant throughout life instead of it rising due to age-related disease, the average person would – statistically speaking – live 1,000 years.
That’s just not how the relevant model works. Unless there’s very good reason to believe we can overcome the limits set by this model, this calculation is like saying
the number of radioactive atoms decaying to stable atoms in this 1kg lump of nuclear waste in the first hour after its formation is . If we could keep this number constant throughout storage, nuclear waste would—in terms of radioactivity—be completely converted to stable elements in just 3 years.
Although there are some arguments on why significant extension of lifespans might be possible, the relevant model is not even discussed, and thusly I don’t think the arguments brought forth are good enough to warrant the claim that 1000 years are possible.
Fair point. Works differently for everyone, but at least one should reflect on the state of their desk once in a while.
I do not understand your need to post this comment anonymously.
If you have internalized the concept of what a sharp edge is and if you are using said knive to cut things.
If, on the other hand, you are a child, no or a very dull knife is the best option.
Memorizing disconnected bits of knowledge without understanding the material—that would be a case of overfitting.
That is exactly what most students do. Source: Am student, have watched others learn.
Keep your work desk productive.
De-clutter your work desk regularly, getting rid of things you don’t actually use. This includes equipment, paper, plants and even furniture that’s doing nothing. Put misplaced items back to their designated space. Designate spaces for supplies and references if you haven’t already. Free nearby spaces which are cluttered with things you don’t actually use. Put those things out of reach, fill the space with other things.
A good idea is to remove every single item on your desk and think about what you actually need. Repeat this monthly. Put everything back to its place at the end of the day. Repeat this daily. If you find that you need to fetch something daily, put it closer.
Summary of best comments on the original repository
The best advice posted (best comments) in the original repository included (I blatantly pirate-copied it over from their various authors):
Avoid commuting, or failing that, commute effectively (i.e. by train or bicycle and not by car, so you can do some useful work or exercise).
Start your posts with a summary if it’s more than 3-5 paragraphs. Use paragraphs.
Treat craigslist as a free storage. You don’t need to physically own all the tools if you can pick them up for <(0.1 paychecks). Treat those things as if you’d already own them. Pick ’em up when you actually need them.
Spend more effort (money, time) on optimizing things you regularly use, such as clothing, matresses, hygiene products, kitchen accessories, and ergonomic computer hardware.
If you are trying to do X, surround yourself with people who do X. E.g. if you want to read, go visit a (university) library.
If you are looking for a job, tell everyone you know. Many jobs are gained through personal connections. Post on facebook.
If a complete stranger or an acquaintance can do something useful for you, ask. (Politely. At a convenient time. With an appropriate amount of honest flattery.) If they say no, don’t press them. Always remember to thank them twice: After they agree to help you and again after they’ve actually helped you.
Obtain a smartphone. Use it to look data (wikipedia), directions, prices (amazon), and places (yelp), record memos and various data, and read emails. Also, set alarms.
Learn to cook at least a handful of simple, cheap, fast meals.
Never post a web link that requires readers to click on it to find out if they want to click on it.
Observe the 80⁄20 rule for cleaning. Better clean twice as often less efficiently than waste a day cleaning stuff thoroughly.
When in need of a conversation topic, ask a question about the other person’s life. Anything about their life. People like to talk about themselves.
Always negotiate the salary when being accepted for a job.
Lots and lots more, from habit formation to winter clothing. Just take a look.
As in, “I need to have exactly this kind of mug. It will vastly improve the quality of my life!”
Don’t hurry, looks like we’ll have a re-run soon :).
Some ideas of mine:
really bright lights
a cook book with healthy, easy, and quick recipes
some computer hardware, like a better keyboard or mouse, or a second computer screen
a few meditation lessons
good headphones (in terms of quality, not price)
some room decoration, e.g. plants
paying a delivery service instead of buying things yourself
an electric teeth brush (assuming you don’t own one)
What about larger investments, i.e. $200-$500? If they lead to a proportionally better life, these might be worth considering as well.
Should we have some sort of re-run for the various repositories we have? I mean, there is the Repository repository and it’s great for looking things up if you know such a thing exists, but (i) not everyone knows this exists and more importantly, (ii) while these repositories are great for looking things up, I feel that not much content gets added to the repositories. For example, the last top-level comment to the boring advice repository was created in march 2014.
Since there’s 12 repositories linked in the meta repository as of today, I suggest we spend each month of 2015 re-running one of them.
I’m not certain which form these re-runs should take, since IMO, all content should be in one place and I’d like to avoid the trivial inconvenience for visitors clicking on the re-run post and then having to click one more time.
Should there be some sort of re-run of the 12 repositories during 2015, one per month? [pollid:808]
Which form should the re-run have, conditional on there being one? [pollid:809]
I’m just making a similar experience.
Definitely involves math (since you asked).
A valid reason would be the scarcity of resources. Further technological progress will be severely constrained by which chemical elements are available cheaply and which are not. Lots of interesting and useful chemical elements are not available in sufficiently concentrated ores, or they are rare in all of earth’s crust, having sunken down inside earth’s core during its formation.
These elements thusly are produced only as by-products of other elements which are more concentrated in their ores. This is valid not only for most of the lanthanides, but also for elements like indium, tellurium, gallium, germanium and the platinum group metals.
Asteroids might hold rich deposits of these elements because the elements could not sink down into their cores, and even if they did, most asteroids are small enough.
So if we don’t want to substitute that indium tin oxide in our smartphone touchscreens with cheaper elements, we’ll have to mine asteroids.
Edit²: Here’s a relevant review article (Vesborg, Jaramillo 2012)
I’m happy that you adressed this topic. It adresses a certain failure mode about instrumental rationality that may commonly cause high-status people to make poor decisions.
However, I don’t think your narrative about human civilization, the birth of politics etc. is actually necessary for your conclusion. I think at best it’s dubious as far as historical accuracy goes, and entertaining as a metaphor for the different layers for human interaction with each other and the environment.
The example with the persons’ heads, I found much more helpful at understanding your conclusion (which I share in general). It’s a good post. If I could suggest a change, I would cut out the social evolution bit and fill it with more examples, counter-examples, and border cases, preferrably taken from the real world.
On the contrary, from my experience it isn’t.
Sorry, I could not resist the opportunity. But seriously, I don’t often see people disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. More often, they’ll point out different aspects, or their own perspective on a topic. To be honest, support and affirmation are perhaps a bit rarer than they should be, but I’ve rarely perceived disagreement to be hostile, as opposed to misunderstanding, or legitimate and resolvable via further discussion.
More datapoints, anyone?
Edited. Thanks. I remember thinking about it, and noticing that it doesn’t quite match.
If you’re reading a pdf with multiple pages, zooming out to show the entire page (or even displaying two pages at once if your display is wide enough) enables super-fast scrolling through the document. I have seen people not do this and it was painful to watch.
Also, some pdf readers (including adobe reader) have a “magnifying glass” feature, which achieves what you described without having to open the document a second time.