LessWrong 2.0 Reader

I have time-space synesthesia, so I actually picture some times as being literally farther away than others.

I visualize the months of the year in a disc slanted away from me, kind of like a clock with New Years being at 6pm, and visualize years on a number line.

My guess as to why this got down-voted:
1) This reads like a manifesto, and not an argument. It reads like an aspirational poster, and not a plan. It feels like marketing, and not communication. 
2) The style vaguely feels like something ChatGPT might right. Brightly polished, safe and stale.
3) This post doesn't have any clear connection to making people less-wrong or reducing x-risks. 

3) wouldn't have been much of an issue if not for 1 and 2. And 1 is an issue because, for the most part, LW has an aversion to "PR [LW · GW]". 2 is an issue because ChatGPT is now a thing so styles of writing which are like ChatGPT's are viewed as likely to have been written by ChatGPT. This is an issue because texts written by ChatGPT often have little thought put into them, are unlikely to contain much that's novel, and frequently have errors. 

What kind of post could you have written which would have been better received? I'll give some examples. 

1) A concrete proposal for UBI that you thought was under-valued
2) An argument addressing some problems people have with UBI (e.g. who pays for all of it? After UBI is implemented and society reaches an equilibrium, won't rents-seeking systems just suck up all the UBI money leaving people no better off than before?). 
3) Or a post which was explicit about wanting to get people interested in UBI, and asked for feedback on potential draft messages. 

In general, if you had informed people of something you genuinely believe, or told them about something you have tried and found useful, or asked sincere questions, then I think you'd have got a better reception. 

I would have appreciated an intuitive explanation of the paradox something which I got from the comments.

An interesting thing is that Laplace’s rule gives almost the same result as Gott’s equation from Doomsday argument, which have much simpler derivation.

Somewhat pedantic correction: they don’t say “one should update”. They say they update (plus some caveats).

I thought of the reason independently: it's that if the number before 66 is not odd, but even instead, it must be either 2 or 4, since if it was 6 then the sequence would have had a double 6 one digit earlier.

I guess in real life, the reason (for leaving out the important variables) is a combination of:

• ignorance
• technical difficulties with measuring something
• people not caring deeply (just doing their job in the easiest possible way)
• legal reasons (it is not allowed to measure something)

To use an example of software developers being evaluated on how many lines of code they write:

• the manager has often zero programming skills, they couldn't tell good code from bad even if they tried, so they try to measure something they can understand
• what is a "good code" actually? ask five programmers in your team, you will get five different opinions
• the manager doesn't really care about the quality of code, just tries to make their boss happy by making some kind of report
• it would be really bad if it turned out that your diversity hire actually sucks at coding, so this way you at least provide them a chance to get good results on paper

There is an important nuance that makes it ~n+4/5 for large n (instead of n+1), but I'd have to think a bit to remember what it was and give a nice little explanation. If you can decipher this comment thread, it's somewhat explained there: https://old.reddit.com/r/mathriddles/comments/17kuong/you_roll_a_die_until_you_get_n_1s_in_a_row/k7edj6l/

For me, "enjoying life" means "enjoying good things that happen in life", while everything in-between is neutral at best. Many people seem to put positive value on "in-between" space.

If I try to point out, some people enjoy just the fact of being embodied.

What I think will happen is things keep getting worse for at least a decade. At some point a critical mass of people will know at least one person whose life was ruined by gambling and then we get a (way over the top) backlash.

Gambling bans in general, strong regulation of even non-monetary video game gambling mechanics.

You see rumblings of this among gamers, who got exposed to gamba trash earlier than the general population.

Or we just embrace the darwinism aspect of it and it becomes one more cause of permanent cultural inequality.