parenting rules 2020-12-21T19:48:42.365Z


Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on More power to you · 2021-12-16T00:39:34.224Z · LW · GW

It's interesting that you (and OP) think that growing electricity use per capita is good. I think it's a reasonable proxy for other kinds of growth in many situations, but what we care about is those other kinds of growth -- and given that there are negative externalities associated with electricity (pollution and climate change) and so there's been a concerted effort to be more efficient, using it as a proxy for growth is a lot more suspect over the past couple of decades.

I would probably want to measure something we care about directly rather than electricity use per capita, at least until something like fusion comes along.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Omicron Post #4 · 2021-12-06T18:17:23.251Z · LW · GW

Thanks for all the work you put in on these incredibly informative posts. This is, hands down, the best source of analysis I've found for all things COVID. 

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on What have your romantic experiences with non-EAs/non-Rationalists been like? · 2021-12-05T14:56:51.720Z · LW · GW

Together for 21 years, married for 17, two kids, all good.

The major thing I had to learn was how to communicate certain things, and when to keep my mouth shut. For example, she doesn't ascribe to the principle of charity when it comes to strangers or the out group. We used to have fights about it (object level always, "why are you taking their side?!?") before I realized they were fundamentally unproductive. And I can think of a couple of key times that she was right and I was overly charitable, including in a work context that really mattered.

On the EA front, we donate 10% of income, to a mix of things -- hers more socially determined, mine more EA-ish, but good organizations all.

I think the world is full of people who don't t think the way you do, no matter who you are, so it's important to be able to form relationships with lots of kinds of people. Hopefully some experience/interest in rationality could help identify otherwise puzzling communication failures.

Also, practically speaking, less wrong / EA / rationalism are heavily male, so most people will need to find someone outside the community as a life partner.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Experience with Cue Covid Testing · 2021-12-01T04:50:11.659Z · LW · GW

I'll chime in with my experience, presumably from the same employer.

I and my team at work have found a pretty high rate of failures, in one case a majority of tests failed. Seems like the failure rate is around 30%, sample size of ~8 people, though not sure of how many tests/person. So that $60/test might look more expensive.

Having said that, I really like the Cue tests. More accurate than fast tests, and super convenient. I'm not very price sensitive so for me it's a clear win.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on The Meta-Puzzle · 2021-11-22T20:33:07.141Z · LW · GW

This is the Godel Escher Bach solution :)

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on The Meta-Puzzle · 2021-11-22T20:29:34.909Z · LW · GW

This was my solution! :)

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on The Meta-Puzzle · 2021-11-22T05:49:43.480Z · LW · GW

I found a different solution to the initial puzzle, which I won't spoil here, but post as a follow-on:

Same scenario, except after you hear the statement, you know the person is single -- but you don't know who they worship!

What was the statement?

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on [Crosspost] On Hreha On Behavioral Economics · 2021-09-05T00:14:57.642Z · LW · GW

FKA slatestarcodex.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Are there substantial research efforts towards aligning narrow AIs? · 2021-09-04T20:33:44.769Z · LW · GW

Of course tons of this research is going on. Do you think people who work at Facebook or YouTube are happy that their algorithms suggest outrageous or misleading content? I know a bit about the work at YouTube (I work on an unrelated applied AI team at Google) and they are altering metrics, penalizing certain kinds of content, looking for user journeys that appear to have undesirable outcomes and figuring out what to do about them, and so on.

I'm also friends with a political science professor who consults with Facebook on similar kinds of issues, basically applying mechanism design to think about how people will act given different kinds of things in their feeds.

Also you can think about spam or abuse with AI systems, which have similar patterns. If someone figures out how to trick the quality rating system for ads into thinking this is a high quality ad, then they'll get a discount (this is how e.g. Google search ads works). All kinds of tricky things happen, with web pages showing one thing to the ad system and a different thing to the user, for instance, or selling one thing to harvest emails to spam for something else. 

In general the observation from working in the field is that if you have a simple metric, people will figure out how to game it. So you need to build in a lot of safeguards, and you need to evolve all the time as the spammers/abusers evolve. There's no end point, no place where you think you're done, just an ever changing competition.

I'm not sure this provides much comfort for the AGI alignment folks....

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Long Covid Is Not Necessarily Your Biggest Problem · 2021-09-01T18:20:18.755Z · LW · GW

I think seasonality is going to push in the other direction for a while. I think in 7-8 months things could plausibly be much better, in fact I think it's likely, but February is still very winter.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on [Crosspost] On Hreha On Behavioral Economics · 2021-08-31T18:33:28.849Z · LW · GW

Out of curiosity, when do you crosspost to LW versus just posting to ACX? I can see that this post is very LW since it's about biases and thus rationality, but I have to think almost all the readers of LW also read ACX.

Is the discussion in the comments different here? (Certainly the comment interface and threading are way better here.)

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on COVID/Delta advice I'm currently giving to friends · 2021-08-24T22:00:06.479Z · LW · GW

Off the cuff: In Alameda County, I'd maybe put 2/3 probability on at least 85% of weeks being between 5000 official new cases per day and 80,000 official new cases per day, until November?


That's a good way to think about it. My 2/3rds confident window looks something like 1.5k-25k per day for most weeks until November. So substantially lower than yours.

For example, if we had the same infection rate as the UK (cases are down from delta peak) it would be 500 cases/day in Alameda county.  The UK might be trending back up now, but the slope is much lower.  Their vaccination rate is a little higher than Alameda county but our vaccines are better, so that's probably ~ a wash, or maybe slightly in the UK's favor.

this Dec 15 - Jan 15 average will be at least 50,000 cases per day

In other words, you think the average for that month will be equivalent to the worst week last winter before anyone was vaccinated? Definitely seems high to me. Delta is much worse, yes, but vaccines really do help quite a bit, I think.

I buy that seasonality is a thing for covid, but I think it will be more like 15kish rather than 50k for that month.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on COVID/Delta advice I'm currently giving to friends · 2021-08-24T18:22:40.166Z · LW · GW

Based on this, I expect this coming Nov/Dec/Jan/Feb to be way worse again around SF. Except the baseline is much higher now, so I expect the elevated case rate to likewise be much higher


I'd like to register a prediction that in the Bay Area and in CA, rates will be drastically below where they are today in a couple of months. 

The reason I think that is that everywhere else, we've seen delta skyrocket, and then collapse once the control system kicks in and herd immunity thresholds are reached as vulnerable people get infected. I think the same thing will happen here.

So contra the advice that this is the best time to do things, I think it's worth waiting. If I'm right we should see evidence in the next few weeks.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Cryonics prices were more complicated when I double-clicked · 2021-08-23T14:45:21.979Z · LW · GW

The long run stock market returns are just below 8% ( returns,-2018 is about 7.96%.), so I think your 12% is optimistic. Your "low returns" case is I think more accurate.

I'm not sure anything in your post really depends on the numbers, but that extra 4 points is a lot of money in the out years.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Covid 8/5: Much Ado About Nothing · 2021-08-05T20:37:05.658Z · LW · GW

For a fascinating, borderline nsfw look at bear week during COVID, and why infections might be atypical, this reddit thread is worth a gander.

"My point is... To everyone worried about the P-Town data: I wouldn't get too nervous going to the grocery store just yet -- unless you tend to have orgies at Market Basket."

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Brief thoughts on inefficient writing systems · 2021-07-30T01:10:48.583Z · LW · GW

I think characters via alphabets dwarfs everything else for written language, but here are a few other factors:

  • how phonetic it is if you want to learn the writing system.
  • how regular it is -- English is full of exceptions (because of its 3 language family history). Spanish is very regular, Russian also has a ton of exceptions.
  • how complicated the morphology is (Finnish is tough because of the super complex morphology, see also Russian). Mandarin is very easy on this dimension.
  • whether there's a phoneme distinction that you didn't learn as a child -- so for a Japanese speaker, l vs r is hard in English ("Engrish"), and for an English speaker, o versus ō is hard in Japanese.

In general, of course, the more similar it is to your native tongue, the easier it is. Tones are hard to learn if you don't speak a tonal language, but if you do then they are super intuitive. Similar with lots of morphology, fixed versus fluid word orderings, etc.

The other angle is spoken versus heard. Portuguese (especially) and French are much easier to speak than understand because of the various ways that sounds are elided or mushed together with fluent speakers. So you can get basic sentences out before you can understand something at full speed -- generally true but much more so for some languages.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Brief thoughts on inefficient writing systems · 2021-07-29T23:52:02.193Z · LW · GW

I think that's a fair criticism.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Brief thoughts on inefficient writing systems · 2021-07-29T21:00:40.472Z · LW · GW

 I work on NLP AI systems and have spent a lot of the past decade working on developing training data, so I have a degree of expertise here. 

There are a lot of things that go into how hard a language is to learn. How close the spelling is to pronunciation is one of them, but not the dominant one for alphabetic languages (grammatical gender is another, which you don't mention).

But you are totally correct that learning a character-based system is much, much harder than learning an alphabetic (or syllabary) language. I think it's a huge disadvantage for e.g. China, where kids have to devote years of study and memorization to be literate, many more than in alphabetic languages. I would go further and say that they are forced to have their whole school system revolve around immense amounts of rote memorization, which I think could lead to the kinds of relative lack of creativity that the Chinese school systems are sometimes criticized for. I don't think you can learn written Chinese without massive amounts of memorization, leaving little room for other ways of thinking for a decade or more.

Further reading:

Of languages that got multiple votes, Catalan and Spanish (and Esperanto) rated as very easy, and written Chinese (and especially literary Sinitic which is old written Chinese) rated very hard.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Improving capital gains taxes · 2021-07-12T21:00:21.998Z · LW · GW

I guess I'm just dense here, but I still don't see how it can be that the risk adjusted return on capital is unaffected by taxes. Borrowing money (i.e. leverage) adds risk so that can't be it (or there's an additional mechanism that comes into play). Later you say that the government is a partner but they aren't reducing your risk, they're just taking half your profits.

Probably not worth the back-and-forth more here but to me the "taxes don't affect returns" position is just obviously wrong and nothing you've said shows a mechanism that would change that.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Improving capital gains taxes · 2021-07-12T15:30:42.179Z · LW · GW

Investors are not profit-maximizing. Investors are (arguably) risk-adjusted profit-maximizing. 

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Improving capital gains taxes · 2021-07-09T20:22:21.111Z · LW · GW

Is there enough money in the world for all investments to lever up 100%? There's certainly not enough that the borrowing costs would be trivial, if debt demand were suddenly so high. 

Also, 100% leverage doubles the risk for the same return (by hypothesis) which probably needs some more support before it's clear that that is socially better compared to status quo. Note that many investment strategies get totally wiped out (due to gambler's ruin) if risk gets too high for the same return.

A better model is that investment capital seeks the best risk adjusted return. Right now there's a balance between opportunities in debt, equities, real assets, etc. If you increase taxes and therefore decrease return on equities, enough capital will move out to other asset classes until the risk adjusted returns are roughly equal. 

Maybe that new equilibrium is better or maybe it's worse, but denying that it will change I think makes your analysis hard to accept.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Which rationalists faced significant side-effects from COVID-19 vaccination? · 2021-06-14T13:40:52.184Z · LW · GW

Surely a poll would be better -- easier for people to answer, less risky of bias.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Am I anti-social if I get vaccinated now? · 2021-06-11T16:42:56.109Z · LW · GW

It's pro-social to get vaccinated now, for the following reasons:


  1. Vaccines that are already delivered to your country are not going to get shipped elsewhere. They have a shelf life and (especially the MRNA ones) don't always travel that well. Vaccine supply to the third world will be shipped from factories, not reclaimed from vaccinations sites now.
  2. Switzerland and other western countries will be more willing to release supply/not buy more when their population is protected. As long as they feel like they have a clear need then they will oppose sending vaccines elsewhere. 

Those two factors make it clear that getting a shot now will more likely decrease (marginally) the time to diversion of significant supply to other places that need it more.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on What to optimize for in life? · 2021-06-06T13:53:57.525Z · LW · GW

"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Tony Hoare by way of Donald Knuth.

See also:

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Are PS5 scalpers actually bad? · 2021-05-18T14:19:39.029Z · LW · GW

If you buy from a retailer, you are paying in time as well as money. This is a good deal for people who have relatively more time than money. If you buy from a scalper, you are substituting money for the time component, which is good for people who value their time more highly.

Therefore scalpers are shifting supply from people who have more time to people who have more money. This is likely moving supply from middle class people to rich(er) people.

If you're in the set of people with more time than money, which is most people, I can see being upset. It arguably substantially increases time to PS5 because you weren't previously competing with someone like me who doesn't have time to spare to track inventory and call around, but has plenty of money. It's removing consumers from a pool that they weren't in yet.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Averting suffering with sentience throttlers (proposal) · 2021-04-05T12:34:29.268Z · LW · GW

I wonder how it would be received if we applied the same reasoning to humans and animals.

Humans might (and in fact do) undergo a lot of suffering. If we could identify people who are likely to suffer high amounts of suffering, then should we put in sentience throttling so that they don't feel it? Seems very Brave New World.

How about with animals? If we could somehow breed chickens that are identical to current ones except that they don't feel pain or suffering, would that make factory farming ethical? Here the answer might be yes, though I'm not sure the animal rights crowd would agree.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on The EMH is False - Specific Strong Evidence · 2021-03-19T04:12:47.233Z · LW · GW

I think some markets are basically efficient and very difficult to beat. The public stock market is one. I'm not convinced by the AI example basically due to priors -- we've seen many many people claim to be able to beat the public markets without special information, with evidence that seems much more convincing than this, and they are on average wrong. So I don't think at least this argument overcomes my priors.

However less liquid markets are for sure beatable. The prediction markets around the election are one. Crypto is another -- I personally have done well not just investing in crypto but by co-founding a hedge fund that has actively traded crypto for 3 years, many trades per day, making a trading profit (earning alpha) on 1081/1093 days. (And the losing days were all very small, each well below a day's average profits.)

I also sit on an investment committee for an endowment and see what returns can look like in private markets where it's possible to have a high informational advantage and turn that into outsized returns.

So to me, the EMH is mostly true for highly liquid highly accessible markets. But for illiquid, less accessible, lower information markets, there is money to be made for people willing to put in the effort. 

Whether it's worth the opportunity cost is also another question, it's not like it's hard to make money lots of ways if you are motivated and smart. Crypto is a fun hobby for me, like poker used to be, and I like to make money from my hobbies. Not everyone wants to spend their free time looking for EV in weird places.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on What is the low hanging fruit of things we could be doing to improve society? · 2021-03-11T14:49:26.470Z · LW · GW

I'm sure there are some hard cases wrt free trade, but we could move a long way towards much more free trade without worrying too much about the corner cases (i.e. allow tariffs on those cases).

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on What is the low hanging fruit of things we could be doing to improve society? · 2021-03-10T17:35:01.211Z · LW · GW

Here's a list of things that I think would not be controversial among economists and relevant experts but nonetheless seem very unlikely to happen any time soon:

  • Much more free trade -- reduce friction, trade barriers, and tariffs. Consider payments to smooth out pain to short term losers
  • Greatly reduced zoning and housing regulations. Housing stock is artificially expensive (at least in most places in the US, especially the Bay Area) due to excessive local regulations and zoning.

    Also no more rent control. Do you want to make sure there's not enough places for people poor people to live? Because rent control is how you make sure there's not enough places for poor people to live
  • Carbon tax. It's the most efficient way to internalize the global warming costs. It'll never be adopted because the price sensitivity to gasoline is way higher than it is to e.g. electricity, so one blanket number will piss off consumers too much
  • Greatly reduce drug approval costs. Accepting approvals from similar agencies overseas is one approach. Greatly expanded "right to try" rules might be another. A more free market approach might be best.

    Also make almost all (actually all?) illegal drugs legal. The enforcement costs and social costs are ridiculously high, far higher than the benefits from the war on drugs
  • Payments for organ transplants. Supply is much lower than demand, and there's no price signal or reason for people to create more supply, so lots of people will die from a lack of a kidney while everyone else has a spare
  • Charter schools/voucher schools. This might be more controversial among "relevant experts" depending on what group you think that is, but the arguments against are very poor and the arguments for seem much stronger to me
  • Get rid of ~all tax deductions. The mortgage interest deduction is regressive and distortionary. The employer-provided health care deduction is distortionary and locks people into jobs. I personally benefit a ton from the charitable deduction but it's also regressive
  • Get rid of the corporate income tax. We want corporations to make money and invest it. Tax income to people, not to companies
  • Greatly reduce occupational licensing. Some of those may make some sense, but most are just thinly veiled job protection for the existing guild members
  • Shorten copyrights (35 years or life of the creator, whichever is longer?), shorten patents, no software or business method patents


I don't think there's a single explanation for why none of those policies seems likely to happen, though at least there's substantial movement on the drug legalization front recently.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Are there good negotiation classes? · 2021-02-24T20:26:31.419Z · LW · GW

I took a class based on Getting More and it was interesting and useful. This was offered by the company so I can't comment on general classes. There's evidently an online course based on the material, no idea if it's more useful than just reading the book.

I like GM more than e.g. the Carnegie book because it's just usefully framed as "understand what the other person wants and try to get it for them" which is like 90% of being a good negotiator, assuming you know what you want as well.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Calculating Kelly · 2021-02-23T00:30:39.843Z · LW · GW

It's too cumbersome and only addresses part of the issue. Kelly more or less assumes that you make a bet, it gets resolved, now you can make the next bet. But in poker, with multiple streets, you have to think about a sequence of bets based on some distribution of opponent actions and new information.

Also with Kelly you don't usually have to think about how the size of your bet influences your likelihood to win, but in poker the amount that you bluff both changes the probability of the bluff being successful (people call less when you bet more) but also the amount you lose if you're wrong. Or if you value bet (meaning you want to get called) then if you bet more they call less but you win more when they call. Again, vanilla Kelly doesn't really work.

I imagine it could be extended, but instead people have built more specialized frameworks for thinking about it that combine game theory with various stats/probability tools like Kelly.

The Math of Poker, written by a couple of friends of mine, might be a fun read if you're interested. It probably won't help you to become a better poker player, but the math is good fun.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Calculating Kelly · 2021-02-22T22:58:38.125Z · LW · GW

At this point I will admit that my gambling days were focused on poker, and Kelly isn't very useful for that.

But here's the formula as I understand it: EV/odds = edge, where odds is expressed as a multiple of one. So for the coinflip case we're disagreeing about, EV is .02, odds are 1, so you bet .02. 

If instead you had a coinflip with a fair coin where you were paid $2 on a win and lose $1 on a loss, your EV is .5/flip, odds are 2, so bet 25%.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Calculating Kelly · 2021-02-22T18:15:34.226Z · LW · GW

The way pro gamblers do this is: figure out how big your edge is, then bet that much of your bankroll. So if you're betting on a coin flip at even odds where the coin is actually weighted to come up heads 51% of the time, your edge is 2% (51% win probability - 49% loss probability) so you should bet 2% of your bankroll each round.

I guess whether this is easier or harder depends on how hard it is to calculate your edge. Obviously trivial in the "flip a coin" case but perhaps not in other situations.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on The Kelly Criterion in 3D · 2021-02-21T03:47:20.114Z · LW · GW

I agree with that, but I think that utility is not even log linear near zero. 

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on The Kelly Criterion in 3D · 2021-02-20T14:18:41.128Z · LW · GW

The Kelly Criterion maximizes the growth of your bankroll over time. This is probably not actually the goal that you personally have for wealth, because of the nonlinearity of money. You (if you're like everyone else) care much more about preserving wealth, once you have some, than you do about growing it.

Some of this might be loss aversion, but mostly this is right -- going from $1M to $2M is nice but far from a doubling in your happiness or ability to do things; going from $1M to zero is a disaster. Kelly doesn't take that into account, except in the purely mathematical way that if you literally go to zero you can't make any more bets (which never happens).

For this reason, professional gamblers I know tend to bet half-Kelly to balance out bankroll preservation with growth. (Source: used to be a pro poker player.)

On the flipside, if you have another source of income, you can bet more aggressively. For instance, if you have a job that generates positive savings, you can count unearned savings as part of your bankroll for Kelly purposes. This is a huge advantage pure pro gamblers don't have. You probably don't want to be too too aggressive there, and how much to count will depend on the stability and/or fungibility of your income. A year or two of savings could be appropriate.

None of this should change your bottom line that you should take +EV longshot bets if you've been passing on them, just how much you should bet.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Bedtime reminiscences · 2021-02-19T14:23:00.182Z · LW · GW

One thing we did when the kids were small was called rose/bud/thorn. Each of us says something good that happened that day (the rose), something bad (the thorn), and something we were looking forward to (the bud). Sort of a starter gratitude journaling exercise.

No idea if it did anything useful, of course. Parenting is like that.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on #unclogtheFDA: a twitter storm to approve vaccines · 2021-02-07T15:17:45.702Z · LW · GW

I think picking a weekday is better than a Sunday, because most of the influence will come from media coverage. A media cycle is easier to start during the week than on a weekend.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Covid 2/4: Safe and Effective Vaccines Aplenty · 2021-02-05T00:18:28.651Z · LW · GW

The reinfection rates for the SA variant are indeed concerning. Do we have any data on whether previous infection prevents deaths or severe infection? The vaccines in general seem to do a great job of stopping the really bad outcomes regardless of how well they do on preventing all infections, so possibly something similar could be going on with the SA variant. Any data either way?

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Covid 1/28: Muddling Through · 2021-01-29T01:25:41.471Z · LW · GW

So actually the best outcome for the US is to ship with regular syringes, but then also ensure a ready supply of low dead space syringes so that those can actually be used?

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Covid: Bill Gates and Vaccine Production · 2021-01-28T18:23:16.067Z · LW · GW

He gets a tax benefit due to timeshifting. If he puts stock into the foundation he gets the tax benefit immediately even though the foundation will pay out that money over time. In return he has given up some control and is legally obligated to give away 5% every year.

It's definitely not the only way. Zuck's equivalent is an LLC, which is less tax efficient but more flexible.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on What is going on in the world? · 2021-01-17T14:02:18.505Z · LW · GW

You could make that less parochial by rephrasing to something like:

There is a worldwide rise in nationalism and populism and corresponding rejection of globalism, leading to worse leaders. This rise is poorly understood by elites, which lessens hope that this trend is going away soon.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Will Donald Trump complete his first term? · 2021-01-09T15:06:34.106Z · LW · GW

Just based on the very short timeframe involved, it's hard for me to see that there's much chance that Trump will get removed from office. The House democrats sound reasonably serious about impeachment but there's essentially no time for a trial in the Senate, which is still controlled by Republicans. Almost zero chance of removal by impeachment.

(Predictit has "The Senate convicts Trump in his first term" at 8 cents so if you agree with me there's a sell opportunity there.)

The 25th amendment route is one that Pence and the Cabinet are going to strongly disprefer, so that seems like it will only happen in the case that Trump does something really egregious -- which again seems unlikely especially if there's a credible threat that removal could actually happen. Lots of angry social media posts, if he can find a place to post them, seems assured, but taking actions that would result in removal? What would those even be? Unless he's legitimately having a mental breakdown, and I see no particular evidence of that, this seems like a few percent at most to me.

That leaves resignation. Here I have trouble estimating probabilities. The persistent rumor is that he will resign and have Pence pardon him, but it's not clear that Pence will be willing to. But maybe resignation would avoid impeachment or removal and maybe there's a deal being made, so it seems like there should be at least a few percent chance of this happening.

Also it's strange that the odds of impeachment and the odds of completing his time in office are so similar. 

Aside from the pure arbitrage play of selling polymarket and buying predictit, I would probably just bet that nothing happens, since there's always a large chance that everything is just noise. Congress is in recess right now. So the predictit market seems like a buy to me.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Covid 12/31: Meet the New Year · 2020-12-31T18:44:00.071Z · LW · GW

If anyone knows how to use money to speed up vaccine delivery I'd love to know. I might be able to quickly allocate something like $5-20M but I have no idea who to work with to do it. CA would be easiest. Also easier if it's in a poor community like the central valley but honestly any leads would help.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on parenting rules · 2020-12-23T19:50:57.982Z · LW · GW

That's a fantastic one! I totally agree, and we do this as well.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on parenting rules · 2020-12-21T23:01:49.748Z · LW · GW

I wouldn't go that far. Instead I would say that it could be right but the evidence is much weaker than I thought it was 8 years ago.

A few things that convinced me:

A slatestarcodex series on mindset:

A large preregistered study on growth mindset maybe showed a small effect but nothing like what proponents claimed.

And generally my trust in the kinds of small n social science experiments that were the backbone of growth mindset research and similar things like priming is just much lower -- my prior is now that those things are mostly noise, and so the evidence needs to be stronger to overcome that, where that wasn't true 8 years ago. 

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Covid 11/19: Don’t Do Stupid Things · 2020-11-19T20:01:02.305Z · LW · GW

Re ML for audio of a forced cough to detect COVID, my prior here is that ~all new impressive results in the ML space fail to work in the real world. Translating from the lab to reality is just really hard in the ML space, especially once you are talking about things like audio which vary a lot depending on the environment and mic. 

All of which is to say someone should definitely build an app, but it's far from a slam dunk that it'll work.

The good news is that according to the paper, they are working with someone already:

"To that end, we have reached an agreement with a Fortune 100 company to demonstrate the value of our tool as part of their COVID-19 management practices."

Most of the value here will be in the third world, I think -- by the time this is ready to go we'll have access to vaccines in first world countries.

Comment by Dave Orr (dave-orr) on Competitive Truth-Seeking · 2017-11-06T11:13:48.038Z · LW · GW

I think that you need to consider both precision and recall of your interview process. The standard interview process is optimized for precision -- you want to be as sure as possible that the people you identify as good are actually good. This is in part because it's very expensive to fix a hiring mistake, and also because the candidate pool is very bad. The good candidates get hired and keep jobs, and the bad candidates keep interviewing.

If you come up with a new process that has higher recall (can find Bob when the typical process doesn't), unless you've invented something that dominates the typical process, you're going to get a bunch of false positives and end up hiring people you think are Bobs but are actually bad.

TL;DR your post focuses on recall (avoiding false negatives) but in reality precision (avoiding false positives) is much more important because the candidate pool is mostly terrible.