Posts
Comments
I would instead choose a relatively light ‘this is not allowed’ where in practice we mostly look the other way
That is very seldom a good idea, for reasons detailed in https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1209794.html (if euthanasia is outlawed, only outlaws will euthanize their patients) https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted/ (any circumstance where the actual norms don't match the ostensible norms can lead to uncertainty and/or disagreements on what exactly the former are, and you don't want that)
Multiplying all this together gets you to a 1 in 80 million chance of all this stuff happening under the null hypothesis, which is highly significant.
Not until you work out the chance of all this stuff happening under alternate hypotheses, and the prior probabilities of alternate hypotheses, and the prior probability of the null hypothesis.
(I asked random.org for 10 random bytes and I got 02 c8 c2 30 60 b3 2e 93 a6 e9 . The chance of this happening under the null hypothesis is 1 in 1.2×10^24
"Being a physicist is a drag, but it still beats working" (Aurelio Grillo as quoted by Giorgio Parisi, translation from Italian mine)
I'm almost sure Sumerian had words for "artificial" and for "intelligence".
"Paracetamol" on the other hand... :-)
I'm almost sure I saw a Wikipedia article about this back in the mid 2000s with a 2D version of your plot, but I can't find anything relevant in either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Statistical_fallacies or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes#Statistics ... did I just dream of it?
(it's hard to get curtains that block direct sunlight that well).
[These things](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stellladen_Roll_fcm.jpg) are pretty much ubiquitous in Italy in buildings since circa 1970s, and [these ones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Villa_Olmi_K.jpg) (which are somewhat less effective but still way better than a curtain) in earlier buildings.
I dunno... IME, when someone not capable of steelmanning him reads e.g. David Icke, what usually happens is that they just think he must be crazy or something and dismiss him out of hand, not that they start believing in literal reptilian humanoids.
The ToC makes it looks like "blood donations" and "exercise" are among "things that will eventually kill you"...
(Not sure whether $50/day allows you to do this in San Francisco, but:) Live within walking/cycling distance of work, grocery stores, nightlife, museums, etc. so you won't have to drive a car every day.
Yeah, I often refuse giving people money for something I don't care about even if the impact of that on my wealth would be negligible just in order to not reward them.
98.: I don't think the link points where you wanted it to point
My guess would be that:
- the direct biological harms of alcohol are roughly linear, i.e. one drink a week is about 1/7 as harmful as seven drinks a week, which in turn is about 1/7 as harmful as forty-nine drinks a week;
- the psychologically mediated benefits of alcohol (through reduced anxiety, improved socialization, etc.) quickly rise up to a few drinks a day, then plateau (and even reverse at very high doses)
- when you subtract something like atan(x) from a straight line you may or may not get a minimum at x slightly greater than zero, depending on the slopes involved
(which I think is still not quite enough to make it obvious he's less dangerous than complete strangers on her way from the metro station back home unless she's in a third-world country, but still)
What do you think they might be tracking that Sinclair isn't?
e.g. his demeanor, and the way other people at the meetups who've known him for longer than she has treat him
I wonder whether there's a niche for generative AIs exclusively trained on works in the public domain...
Roll back the thing whereby you not only can but automatically do upvote your own comments?
Sounds like a solution in search for a problem TBH
I'm almost sure the energy you'd save in your lifetime by doing it the optimal way would be less than the energy you spent to write this post...
How 'bout "non-omnicidality"?
(BTW, the term for this is "Muhammad Wang fallacy")
I opened the comments just to say that!
(Oleg and Olga are the masculine and feminine variants of the same name, which is nearly obvious from their spellings but you'd never guess that from their Russian pronunciations alone)
And Irish (Gaelic) has both! (/ɲ/ is slender ng, /nʲ/ is slender n)
BTW, see http://www.numericana.com/answer/p-adic.htm#decimal for solutions to x^3 = x, x^4 = x etc.
...and my votes count twice because I have lots of karma, even though it's from eight years ago?
Wait... do I upvote my own comments by default now?
Do the Chinese verses in the last screenshot also rhyme, and are the English ones actually translations of them?
(If so, color me very impressed.)
Hello everyone, I used to have an account here a looong time ago which I had deactivated and I just realized I could undeactivate it.
I have been convinced that deleting my comments would be overkill, so I'm going to just delete my account, which will anonymize my comments, and hope that the permalink page title bug will be fixed.
I might come back here with a different username later.
Thanks to Baughn for their offered help.
Have a nice day.
The nice thing about IF is that in many forms, it's dead easy: you eat nothing one day, twice as much the next.
A particular form of IF I've heard of from several places is even easier: only eat within an 8-hour window each day. I often do that out of sheer can't-be-arsed-to-have-breakfastness.
(I hear that existing studies about that are pretty confounded, e.g. they find that people who don't have breakfast are less healthy but the effect disappears when controlling for conscientiousness.)
- You might be underestimating P(X read that particular XKCD | I know X), as I am a physicist, and know a fair number of engineers and computer scientists and a few mathematicians;
- you might be underestimating P(X continued to read enough of the site to stumble on my username | X was led to LW for the first time) -- I've commented a lot, including on many of the posts linked to on the about page and the welcome threads;
- it's not motivated doxxing (which I know is very very unlikely) that I'm worried about -- comments which I would mind someone I know in meatspace reading comprise a sizeable minority of all my comments (not just for the consequences to myself -- I'd dislike, as a terminal value, certain people to hear certain things I've said about certain topics, especially other people).
How many of said threats are not bluffs? I mean, I know that some of them aren't, but I can't get myself to alieve it.
As of now, after both you and lfghjkl suggested me not to delete valuable comments, I'm leaning towards just deleting my account. (I've already removed my location from it as per ChristianKl's suggestion.) If I was in the Hyperbolic Time Chamber I'd delete all comments excepts those with positive karma which I wouldn't mind anybody I know reading, but...
(BTW FWIW I'm a “he”.)
It'd be a hell of a lot of work to find all of them.
You can still tell who wrote such comments by following the permalink and looking at the title of the page.
I'm mostly worried about people stumbling upon LW e.g. from the title text of that comic, starting browsing the site, reading my comments, and recognizing my username from elsewhere. Granted, someone motivated to doxx me enough to overcome trivial inconveniences could still do so, but I don't think that's likely to happen enough for me to worry about it.
I've written things about other people without their consent, figuring there would be a negligible chance anybody could guess who they were. But now I think that chance, while still not huge, is no longer that negligible.
(I've also written certain politically incorrect things, but as someone working in a non-humanities field over 4000 miles away from Harvard, and who isn't going to apply for a job in the US any time soon, and likely not anywhere else in the Anglosphere either, I'm not terribly worried about that.)
Do you really think that who you are in meatspace is possible to identify from reading a few LW posts?
My username is formed by a shortening (though not one I often go by) of my real first name and my real birth year, and I've used it elsewhere, including in my main non-work e-mail address; so anyone who knows my e-mail would at least suspect that this LW account is mine.
(I first picked this username when I was 14 and kept using it everywhere out of habit.)
Will you be making a new account that will be even less tied to you,
I probably will. I might also create an account under my full name which I will only use for things I'm (100 - epsilon)% sure I wouldn't mind anyone reading.
I would own much but not all of what I've written on LW, and selectively deleting only the things I wouldn't own would take infeasibly long.
I am considering deleting all of my comments on Less Wrong (or, for comments I can't delete because they've been replied to, editing them to replace their text with a full stop and retracting them) and then deleting my account. Is there an easier way of doing that than by hand?
(In case you're wondering, that's because thanks to Randall Munroe the probability that any given person I know in meatspace will read my comments on Less Wrong just jumped up by orders of magnitude.)
For me, "Don't eat meat" is about as difficult as "Don't wear the color blue". It's not a large sacrifice. Yes, I may not be typical.
Not wearing anything blue would be a heckuva sacrifice for me. ;-)
“Once in a time” is quite an understatement of the frequency of completely preposterous posts on OB.
Why do studies that do find that it all comes down to genetics and nonshared environment not get the "evil racist" treatment?
Not only that, they also are a relatively recent phenomenon. The Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn't an ethnostate either. AFAICT ethnic nationalism mostly dates back to Romanticism.
as well as being raised by people to whom Azathoth has given a desire to care about the child's future, as opposed to who are conditioned to regard the child as a rival for their children
That'd be an argument against all adoptions and orphanages, not just gay adoptions.
The child is deprived of a mother (or father).
So are children raised in orphanages. Where do you think children adopted by gay couples come from?
And yes the two play different roles in bringing up children.
And yet empirically children raised by gay couples don't end up much worse adjusted than those raised by straight couples, and more generally parenting seems to have very little effect on children when controlling for genetics and nonshared environment.
Am I the only one to whom ‘what's wrong with raping someone if they don't get injured, traumatized, pregnant, nor get STDs’ sounds a lot like ‘what's wrong with driving at 100 km/h while drunk, sleep-deprived and talking on the phone if you don't have any accidents’?
But but fictional evidence!