*linear algebra computational graph engine with automatic gradient calculation

I really wonder how this will fit into the established deep learning software ecosystem - it has clear advantages over any single one of the large players (Theano, Torch, Caffee), but lacks the established community of any of them. As a researcher in the field, it's really frustrating that there is no standardisation and you essentially have to know a ton of software frameworks to effectively keep up with research, and I highly doubt Google entering the fray will change this.

https://xkcd.com/927/

I'm trying to figure out the business strategy behind open sourcing this.

Android I got... open sourcing was a good play (maybe the only play) to compete with iPhone.

Opensourcing TensorFlow could be a recruitment strategy - but somehow I think Google already gets top machine learning talent.

Anyone have any ideas?

Note the alt text about talking its way out of the box.

20:1 against Hal Finney or Wei Dai

Yeah, but how cool would have been if Satoshi was Wei?

Are you interested in betting it is one of the people on your list at 3:1 odds? My interest is academic, I have close to zero idea who may be Satoshi.

See also Patton's (1988) "Can bad men make good brains do bad things?" (AKA "Brain in a vat on a trolley"), published in APA Proceedings.

The general rule of teaching is to progress from specific things to more general things. (As opposed to explaining the general things first, when the students are unable to imagine a specific example. Or when the students only know one specific example, so they are unable to understand what is the benefit of speaking abstractly.)

I suspect the issue with programming is related. "Write a program that solves problem X" is too abstract for a beginner, who hasn't seen yet enough specific examples of "a program that solves a problem".

The correct way is to start with giving examples: "program P1 solves the problem X1 (now let's look how exactly it accomplishes the task)", "program P2 solves the problem X2", "program P3 solves the problem X3", etc. Only after practicing this is the proper time to ask "what would be a program that solves a problem X".

I think the article was making a stronger statement: programming isn't the best way to learn programming (at least at first). Sounds bonkers to me, but I don't trust my pedagogic intuitions.

I think most people are in it to learn programming though, if we redefine comp sci like this then it sort of changes what it means.

Short answer: No, it isn't unusual. You have 23 comments total, if my lazy calculation is correct, all of which were made within the last three months, and around half of which were made in the past month. Your comments tend to be negatively voted, and some percentage of people here, when finding a comment they don't like, go through a user's history to downvote other comments they don't like. (The reverse is somewhat rarer, by my estimation, but also happens.)

Since you're new and aren't well-calibrated on how a given comment will be taken, your comments will be all over the place. I note in particular a political angle to some of your comments, which - well, some of those who agree with you will upvote, most people here will downvote, as politics are discouraged.

You have one comment with -20 Karma. I'm honestly impressed. I've never seen a Karma value that low before. One out of every three of your downvotes has come from that one comment.

A mix of interesting ideas and unsubstantiated not even wrong stuff.

A shorter version of how I understood it:

• There are people who love creating X.

• There are people who admire X. Not being creators, their love of X manifests by supporting the creators: socially or otherwise.

• Sometimes a cool community appears as a result.

• There are many people who want the "cool" part, but don't intrinsically care about X. They join the group, but they complain that the X is too X. (What they really want is something 99% mainstream, with a small flavor of X, pretending to be the original X-centered community.)

• Unless actively fought against, these people soon become a majority in the community, because the population contains much more people who want to be cool than people who love X. This creates a tension between the old fans and the new fans.

• Finally someone sees the real dynamics of the group, and provides the masses exactly what they want (something 99% mainstream, with a small flavor of X, pretending to be X), in exchange for fame and money. Now there is a tension between the old creators + fans and the new creators + fans.

• The old creators + fans complain that the community does not care about X anymore, but they are a minority, so they gradually retire from the community. (If they try an open conflict, they lose.)

• In the absence of people who care about X, the community loses what made it unique. It is not cool anymore. Everyone is disappointed... except for the new creators, who easily move to another community ready to be exploited.

What can be done to prevent this?

• Create costly barriers to entry; don't let the "fake fans" in. -- Problem: You give up the resources that even the "fake fans" would bring. Also, by being less famous, even the people who care about X may not find you.

• Keep a limit on the number of "fake fans". (Author suggests that 6:1 ratio of "fake fans" to "true fans" is optimal; 10:1 is too much to handle.) -- Problem: The old members would have to consciously understand the strategy and agree on it. Also, it's difficult to regulate the "fake fans", because they come in waves.

• Recognize the "fake creators" and eject them. -- Problem: Impossible. Geeks are famously bad at excluding. Also, at that moment the geeks will already be a minority in their own community; they may get steamrolled by the fans of a "fake creator".

• Accept this life-cycle as a reality, and when things start doing downhill, be ready to quit and start a new hardcore-X community. -- Problem: Some old members will feel strongly about their old identity. Also, still a waste of resources.

• Accept the "fake fans" as a reality, and create also what they want in exchange for their resources. (Still try to eject people who create only for the "fake fans".)

This seems related:

there are many ways to try and signal wisdom. But trying to signal wisdom by refusing to make guesses - refusing to sum up evidence - refusing to pass judgment - refusing to take sides - staying above the fray and looking down with a lofty and condescending gaze - which is to say, signaling wisdom by saying and doing nothing - well, that I find particularly pretentious.

... part of it also has to do with signaling a superior vantage point. After all - what would the other adults think of a principal who actually seemed to be taking sides in a fight between mere children? Why, it would lower his status to a mere participant in the fray!

Similarly with the revered elder - who might be a CEO, a prestigious academic, or a founder of a mailing list - whose reputation for fairness depends on their refusal to pass judgment themselves, when others are choosing sides. Sides appeal to them for support, but almost always in vain; for the Wise are revered judges on the condition that they almost never actually judge - then they would just be another disputant in the fray, no better than any other mere arguer.

... On this point I'd advise remembering that neutrality is a definite judgment. It is not staying above anything. It is putting forth the definite and particular position that the balance of evidence in a particular case licenses only one summation, which happens to be neutral. This, too, can be wrong; propounding neutrality is just as attackable as propounding any particular side.

There's a difference between:

• Passing neutral judgment;
• Declining to invest marginal resources;
• Pretending that either of the above is a mark of deep wisdom, maturity, and a superior vantage point; with the corresponding implication that the original sides occupy lower vantage points that are not importantly different from up there.

-- Pretending to be Wise

Correction: first is an example of weak man argument mixed with personal uncomfortability. However, we could also strong man that as character 1 being agnostic and annoyed at people's attempts at arguing for certainty on the topic.

Second comment is a variant on "my opponent believes something" (noncentral fallacy territory) but breaks into genetic fallacy with the emotion part. My opponent feels annoyed by two opposing groups which is kind of like he thinks that they are intrinsically inferior which is kind of like he thinks he is better/smarter than them which is kind of like he had a superiority complex which is kind of like he doesn't care about the issue at all which is kind of like he is just self centered which is kind of like he's a bad person.

(I may have added extra steps but you get the picture)

Also, good job at noticing your own confusion and uncomfortableness with it even if you weren't sure why!

Meta-signaling? He appears to be signaling something by signaling something.

I'm out in a small town pretty much every week, and I'm always happy to go back to the city.

Mostly it's the people. Everybody smart enough to do a knowledge worker job has left. Everybody creative enough to make art has left. Everybody who understands the value of excellent education for their kids has left. Everybody young and beautiful enough to get into the dating scene has left. Everybody who wants an exciting life has left. The people who remain are still nice (everybody everywhere is nice, really) and often admirably hard-working, but they're slow and seem to live inside fairly tight horizons. I like to be among people I can learn from, and I find those in the city.

I also like life in the city because I like to travel, mine has an airport and excellent public transport, and I really like not owning a car. To live an hour away from the nearest big city would mean that everything in the world would be an hour further away.

So I might reconsider when I can call up a self-driving electric taxi to take me places at any time, or when VR takes off in earnest and I spend much of my time in there. But by that time, I imagine life in the city will have become even more interesting, and life in the country will have fallen even further behind.

Mostly only answering the short question, but: most of my friends are from reddit. This is super convenient, and I'd be very hesitant to move somewhere that didn't have a similar ready-made community for me.

(But I don't know how I'd tell. I imagine only a handful of cities worldwide have a suitable subreddit, and a handful have large rationalist communities. Beyond that, I'd want to check for sunday assembly and for Meetup groups. But I guess not every community of suitable size and demographic will be a good fit for me, and I don't know how I'd test that in advance.)

London also makes it easy to take up hobbies, and I imagine that would be more consistent in big cities. Your current location might not lack anything you currently want, but that may be partly because you haven't had a chance to discover you want them.

I suspect there are regional differences that matter as much or more as size does. A 200K city in Europe that's a short train ride from a larger city is going to feel very different from one in the southern USA with no easy connection to a metropolis or one in the west that's kind of sprawling connection of similarly-sized cities, which adds up to a large city, but over many square miles.

Job is definitely one of the most common motivators, but a lot of people are drawn to aspects of the "character" of a location, which is more some mix of common habits, popular amenities, and other social expectations which make your life and interaction styles seem more or less weird than other places.

A quote from Snowcrash, emphasis mine:

Young smart people like Da5id and Hiro, who take the risk of living in the city because they like stimulation and they know they can handle it.

I don't think there are LW meetups in 200K cities. Big cities allow more interesting events to happen.

What's the goal? Dancing? Gymnastics? Less pain? Without a goal I know I would inevitably give up.

But to answer the question: stretch, do yoga or pilates (these are good because they create a goal, something to improve upon).

Surgery to replace the bones with rubber things.

Oh wait, you had some constraints on the problem?

Whatever the case may be, the private sector often does things better and less coersively than governemnt. I wonder if kinds of government regulation could be replaced by enterprising individuals starting say a 'minimum wage of $20 across this organisation' type thing and compete on that basis for high quality employees or consumers?

In many countries, trade unions negotiate industry-wide wage agreements in the absence of national wage laws, but in the presence of anti-union-busting laws.

I wonder if kinds of government regulation could be replaced by enterprising individuals starting say a 'minimum wage of $20 across this organisation' type thing and compete on that basis for high quality employees or consumers?

It likely depends very much on the organisation. I don't think Google would have a problem with that policy.

a cross-employee policy affects all employees. however it affects them individually. selfish people (and there are enough of them) will only see the benefit once; and to themselves. Everyone might agree that this policy would be a good one; but every person only "feels" it once. The magnitude of the policy affects a larger scale than it personally "feels" like it does. So it would be a hard sell.

having said that - Ford (I think) decided that he wanted his employees to be able to buy his cars. so pushed the wages up and the car prices more affordable.

there are books, most of which are filled with out-date psychodynamic bullshit.

On what basis do you claim that the textbooks on the subject aren't evidence based but bullshit?

Systematic reviews don't exist for: ... borderline personality disorder ...

I thought that got Dialectic Behavior Therapy.

Also, the shyness treatment article has been withdrawn. They intended to make one but didn't find any good sources.

I bet most people answering this question do so not by any sort of reasoned consideration of how important work, family, sleep, video games, music-making, sport, etc., etc., etc., are to them, but by a quick System-1-ish consideration of how the question makes them feel. And I bet anyone using this question to measure "conformity with masculinity" or any other psychological characteristic are relying on that. This sort of thing is omnipresent in psychological questionnaires, which I guess is what you're getting at in your second paragraph.

So, anyway, the sort of things I would think about if I were trying to answer this question while taking it more seriously than I think its authors did:

• What would hurt most to lose? (This is Tem42's approach.) By this criterion, work comes out quite important but other things -- e.g., my family -- clearly ahead.
  • But that may be misleading; e.g., one reason why losing my job would hurt less than losing my daughter is that I can probably get another job much more easily and quickly than another daughter. But that doesn't seem like it's the same thing as importance.
• What gives me most satisfaction? By this criterion, work does OK -- I like my job pretty well -- but many other things do better.
  • That may also be misleading. If I really disliked my job but had no savings and a family to feed, work might be very high up on the list of important things while still coming below Nothing At All in satisfaction conferred.
• What do I spend most time thinking about?
  • Could well be work. But does this mean that if my employer suddenly demanded double the working hours (and for some reason I couldn't refuse or quit or anything) it would become much more important to me? I'm not sure that's right.
• What do I voluntarily put most effort into?
  • Could well be work. But it seems like we should be distinguishing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation -- a major reason for putting effort into work is simply that I get paid for my job and I like being paid, and that's not obviously the same thing as importance.
• What do I think most valuable to the world?
  • I think this is a very reasonable sense of "importance" but probably too far removed from the questioner's intent.

If I were fired, this would be bad, but not too terrible. If a family member died this would be worse. I could come up with further examples, but there is no need to; I now have enough information to answer this question: don't agree.

Adventures in Cognitive Biases

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Comment_formatting#Polls

Why should we even care about viral videos? There are plenty of more important and interesting events to use as calibration exercises.

It would have been good to ask for credence instead of a boolean choice.

I had already heard about this, and was 95+% sure of my answer. But you didn't say to not answer if you already knew, so I voted. I'm letting you know so that you can disregard the vote if you want to.

B.

B.

Not sure where is the calibration part.

Neither answer is correct. Snowmen and such are not properly Christmas-themed. American Protestants just lack all knowledge of winter festivals other than the exact combination of Northern-European-pagan and Christian that they celebrate.

I would enjoy having more opportunities to practice spoken English. But I would have to trust the other person to speak correctly, so they are not teaching me their mistakes. Non-English native speakers talking to each other has a risk to propagate "false friends".

I am much better at writing English than at speaking. It helps that I can "cheat" by using Google Translate in the few difficult cases. But also because I have much more practice writing, and in conversation I sometimes realize I am actually not sure how the word is pronounced... or I just pronounce it my way, and the see the confused look on the other person's face.

Fellow LW-ers of the non-english speaking world: if a native started speaking to you, and insisted on continuing to do so in english, would you get the incessant urge to smack him in the head?

I live in Germany and I do from time to time use English to speak with friends who are natively German. But nobody of them cares about German national identity. As far as I understand many people who do care about their national identity wouldn't just switch to English because it goes against their political beliefs. Two average Frenchman would feel like traitors for switching to English with each other.

And on pronunciation, how do you get that to a level where it is not a sore to the ears anymore? (I must mention that I had a logopedist involved in this even for my native language)

Have you thought about using text-to-speech software to create texts on the computer? I would guess that trains proper pronunciation because otherwise the computer won't understand you.

Elitist, probably, annoying, depends on what they have to say:)

However, their extensive 'AI' causality mining subsidiaries have probably identified anything individual researchers may hope to find.

I think that's unlikely. Having more data about what drugs do is useful for a lot of individual researchers who have complex models to predict the activity of chemical substances.

Over time algorithm get better and there's more data to be aggregated.

I don't think you have a good model of politics. Politics is about people. A promise like this isn't made by "the ruling party" but by individual politicians of that party.

Political cooperation also frequently comes with the sharing of documents and other secrets that are not for public consumption.

What are you trying to achieve by posting these very specific hypothetical situations? The common theme seems to be "how one can adequately protect oneself, given future plans that somehow undermine one's present position" but the specific circumstances vary too much.

One area to explore would be the concept of smart contracts, currently best exampled by experiments with blockchain technology - Ethereum and transparency in prediction markets would have places to start. One possible solution to a real-world non-criminal application of that problem would be to hire a neutral third party with appropriate confidentiality trust - like a lawyer - to create an agreement, witness it, and hold it in trust.

This becomes less reliable when you start delving into the ethical problems outlined by other responders if you're trying to create something deniable, but you can probably work around that with an 'if-then' agreement with a lawyer and a pre-sealed envelope.

As a general rule, please ask a doctor before you ask the internet.

Meta/style: I expect the first two sentences of your comment to attract more negative feedback than the rest of it. I might have upvoted if they hadn't primed me to be annoyed. (I read the comment before I read your name, and I'm glad to see the subject taken seriously; the frustration comes from those two sentences. I'm not sure how to explain why. I understand the cultural assumptions that led you to include them, assuming this was genuine and not shock-bait, which seems a safe assumption.)

There used to be a LW user (Lojban) who frequently posted about the supposed values of castration.

What are the specific reasons you are considering this procedure-- for libido reduction, or for the health benefits, or for the ostensible life expectancy increase this procedure might provide? You don't have to answer these questions here, but I'm posting them to make sure that you yourself know your own specific reasons for wanting to be castrated; if you know them, you can focus your research on those areas.

Regarding bone density, I'm not sure how much chemical castration hurts you. In any case, I seem to vaguely recall that there's other stuff you can do to maintain bone density as you age (some of which women tend to pay more attention to then men), so do look into that if you decide to follow through with castration.

It's been a while since I looked into this, and I looked into the stuff on physical, rather than chemical castration, anyways (I don't have a good intuition on how much the two differ on most axes, since I didn't ever look into the chemical castration side of things much). What I'm trying to say is that it may be wise to set aside the research you find on physical castration if you are committed to going the chemical route, unless you're able to convince yourself that it's relevant.

Now that I've disclaimed that which I needed to disclaim, in the spirit of blatant self-promotion, there's always this post.

It would be the most helpful if done prior to puberty.

I'd worry about cardiovascular side-effects, fat accumulation/redistribution, mental side-effects (something something spatial rotation)... basically, I've studied this on and off since puberty (and not before, because life would be boring if I could do anything right the first time), and concluded that, given my current state of health, castration would probably make more things worse than it improves. Actually, I concluded that circa 2008, and I'm pretty sure I was ever-so-slightly healthier then.

". . .my sexual urges. . ." You're scaring me.

I'm not a doctor, but DSM II through V may give you a prognosis, and society's views on your problem as those views evolved over these several editions.

Evidently your symptoms are ego-dystonic, which speaks well for change.

Avoid slippery slopes. With drugs, look for irreversible side effects (that may not show up for years).

Good luck.

I'm not sure the potential risk of side effects of the drugs in question are worth such a change. I don't know how old you are, but your libido might also diminish over time.

I used to have similar thoughts as a teenager, so I understand the sentiment, but like everything else at that age, those concerns seem minute in hindsight.

How much fun do you have? Increasing hedons might yield a more efficient balance.

I would appreciate any evidence anyone can dig up on bone mineral density loss and chemical castrates, relating to long term use and reversibility. I'm struggling to find what I need.

As far as I can tell, there have been no study about the bone density issue in male castration, so good luck on finding one. However, the problem has been study in relation to DMPA used as a contraceptive, and in that case the effects are shown to be real, although reversible. It is possible that the effect on male are not wildly different.

My concerns specifically are: [...] De-masculanisation resulting in lower attractiveness

That strikes me as peculiarly contradictory: why would you care about attractiveness once sexual urges are gone?

It's an old idea from 4chan

Almost, LRR.

That's gotta be fake, right?

Would that be the most anti-LW thing around?

People on LW aren't allowed to like fighting for sport?

The usual bias of highly intelligent people: "You have to do everything alone!"

Why it exists -- Well, if most of the time you are surrounded by people who compared to you are idiots, cooperating with them or delegating tasks to them seems like a really bad idea. And the obvious alternative is to do it alone.

How it fails -- Once internalized, it is difficult to get rid of the habit even when you meet other highly intelligent people. Also, if you do the math correctly, many tasks are worth delegating to less intelligent people, because the average value of the outcome is still positive.

How it shapes people -- If you alieve that cooperation is impossible, your remaining options are either fatalism or hero worship (and depression, when you realize you are not the superman, and will never be), depending on whether you believe that individuals able to fix large problems single-handedly exist or don't.

Why did I post this as a reply to your comment:

They are born and live to become consistent and excellent workers, minor pieces of a giant puzzle

So far (cutting away the rest of the sentence), there is nothing wrong with this; it describes a productive person.

for some few strong people’s entertainment purposes and benefits.

Here comes the hero worship.

Education could be helpful towards self-realization, awareness, knowledge, mental maturity, overcoming any external restrictions and limitations.

Here is how we should make everyone a hero.

There is nothing wrong with having a hero now and then, but if you imagine a society where everyone tries to "overcome any restrictions and limitations", but no one is willing to be an "consistent and excellent worker"... actually, this could be funny to observe (but horrible to live there).

Global Warming is high on my list. The cost for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere seems low enough that this may be the best way to solve it. There are proposals to remove CO2 from the atmosphere at ~$100/tonne. Intuitively, it seems the cheapest way to "remove" CO2 from the atmosphere is to not put more there in the first place: to stop digging up C and burning it. We could still have liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon fuel, we would just need to derive it form biomass: algae and jatropha are both probably in the less than $100 per barrel range, with, I think, algae being very scalable. I wonder if buying up all the coal and oil in the ground and keeping them there once owned wouldn't be the cheapest way to keep C from underground from making it into the air.

Human Population Growth. With less population, all other resource constraints become easier to shift towards sustainable solutions. I'd like to see fertility control tied to aid: you want welfare or international aid, you get fixed. It strikes me the absolute best place to lower population growth is among populations that can't support themselves.

Trust me, many non-normies are even worse.

If I understand part of Ripple's plan is to provide banks with the ability to easily settle debts internationally. I don't see a reason why a bank would use Bitcoin.

bitmesh might be a way for bitcoin to get larger adoption. It seems to me like having a micropayment transaction every 5 seconds as their current video suggests isn't doable at bitcoins transaction fees. Doing it in Ethereum where it's possible to put money into escrow might make more sense.

Ethereum also has decent business models with Augur and Proveance that have the possibility to provide value that people can't get easily outside of crypto-currencies.

what incentive do orthodox financial institutions have to buy-into and legitimize the bitcoin market instead of adopting the technology afresh in cahoots with one another?

Orthodox institutions will potentially have the same reasons to adopt bitcoin as they have for adopting USdollars, swiss francs, and the euro: there are customers willing to pay for their bitcoin services.

Bitcoin will be adopted by customers (ignoring speculators and fanboys) because there are things they want to do that they can do more easily, more quickly, or less expensively with bitcoin than through other means.

Will Bitcoin be adopted by customers at sufficient rate to be adopted by financial institutions, or more generally, to succeed? I certainly don't know. I do know that I have no reason to adopt bitcoin. My credit cards cost me nothing, even though they may cost the businesses I use them at a few percent. I am not involved in transferring money internationally.

Credit cards and international transfer of money are two areas where I have read claims bitcoin provides less expensive service. I am not convinced, however.

Can bitcoin replace credit cards? I don't think so. Credit cards allow for an instant transaction with a fee of a few percent charged for the instantness. That fee is presumably largely there to pay for fradulent transactions. Does bitcoin do this? No. Bitcoin may provide fraud free transactions through the blockchain, but only if you wait, with guidelines suggesting a day, and "common sense" suggesting maybe three blocks in the blockchain showing the transaction in question. So thirty minutes? Certainly if Amazon offered me a 3% discount on my purchases if I used bitcoin, and they wouldn't ship until 1 hour had gone by, I would take it. But would I want to pay for a meal in a restaurant and be physically restrained from leaving for 30 minutes while we waited for blocks including my transaction to come in? Credit cards used in the real world for small transactions are not going to be threatened by bitcoin in my opinion.

I can't speak to international transfers due to lack of knowledge.

I heard strawberry jam can be made with just strawberries, water and sugar on a frying pan on the radio.

I'd use a stove.

Pretty sure the sugar is necessary for preserving. You could make it without sugar, but it would just be pulpy juice-water (the sugar is also a thickening agent), and you would have to eat/drink it pretty fast because it will go bad quickly (I would guess a couple days)

When I was a little kid we used to make blackberry jam. You can just pick wild blackberries in some places, which is quite a lot of work, but hey, you're out in nature, it's fun, and it's free. Looking back I think it was mostly my parents picking berries while my sisters and I were running around and playing in the forest and eating half the berries our parents picked.

The recipe for making jam is indeed just berries, water and sugar. We used a large pot though, not a frying pan. Just cook and steer until it's done. Pour the jam into a jar while it's still hot, and screw the lit on. As the jam cools it'll create a slight underpressure in the jar, helping preserve the jam and tightening the lit even further.

Sealed properly it can stay good for a long time. One year we kind of overdid things (my sisters and I were a bit older, and actually starting helping instead of 'helping') and ended up with over 300 jars of blackberry jam. They were still good 10 years later.

Self-made jam tastes much better than store-bought jam. Whether that is because it actually tastes better, or because your brain just thinks it tastes better because you made it yourself, I don't know. But it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.

selling foods in Australia requires food safety certificates (just another barrier)

preserving food generally - yes. People preserve food in many way, and sell it in many ways. Fruit gets dried with ease too. That might be a more viable option.

Do you have an angle on the marketplace that others do not. i.e. strawberry growers, existing jam making companies? I suspect you have no chance to compete... (this is a rational check generally - "are other people poised to have seen this idea first and acted on it". While not always possible to predict; and not always accurate - for simple ideas it can help temper the excitement of shiny new ideas)

It tastes very good. It is a little bit runny and turns brown after a while. Lots of people make their own jam this way. Except that they use a large pot rather than a frying pan. If you have berries I recommend that you try it. However, it is more expensive than the factory jam.

Is this a quote from something? Please rephrase in plain English so every user who reads it doesn't have to take time decoding it.

Or more workably, we should bet on how quickly obviously Unfriendly AI will emerge and begin the destructive acts that will eventually destroy us all.

I think even if you believe that UFAI will kill us the scenario that there will be obvious UFAI and at the same time a world where a bet like this will be played out is inprobable.

Downvoted for being a stream of consciousness.

I'm not sure whether "African children" is a good mental category. Africa is very diverse. Just because something holds for one African country doesn't mean that generalizes across Africa.

WHO guidelines for IV bolus for septic shock haven't been updated 2 years since the release of a paper leaving it beyond doubt that children will die more with IV treatment

Why do you think that a single paper leave's something beyond doubt? A lot of papers don't replicate.

There's shitty evidence for the guidelines and we don't know (ok, there's the regular reasons like this why the relevant guidelines aren't evidence based yet given how easy it is to get an infectious disease in Africa...

Why do you use "we"? What do you mean with it?

It might very well be true that you lack the understanding of how the WHO works. While likely a lot of people on LW don't have a strong understanding on WHO internal politics I don't think it's nice to start a post by claiming that your audience is ignorant of a subject (if we is supposed to mean the readers of your post).