Posts
Comments
Nikkei 225 and Shanghai Composite Index have been flat for decades
to put concrete number on this, the Nikkei 225 is up 41% in the last year and 78% in the last 5 years denoted in yen [which lost 30% of value to USD in the last 5 years] for better tracking, maybe the iShares MSCI Japan ETF [EWJ] denoted in USD would be a better measuring instrument. EWJ is up 53% in the last 10 years [since 2014]
compare to QQQ tracking NASDAQ up 394% and IYY tracking Dow Jones up 170% in the same time period [since 2014].
Calculation not including dividend
Any chance we can have the instrument only version so we can do karaoke or somesuch?
I am a bit lost. What is that a reference to?
But we don't care about random flu virus. We only track pandemic.
Furthermore random pandemic virus could happen in rural areas but more likely to turn into pandemic when they happen in crowded city. The more crowded the higher the pandemic chances.
How many lab similar to Wuhan in crowded cities vs how many crowded city without lab should be taken into account
How many virus strains is the lab studying? If the lab is studying 50-90% of flu virus strain it would not be strange for random flu virus that appeared in some area close to it to be studied there.
I assume no one will read this comment
assuming the problem is really intractable and the current panel process is the best available solution, then the standard solution is to put up a [scapegoat]
i.e. civil servant do not want to/ not able to do something for someone, instead of saying "this is my judgement", point to an other entity [e.g. code of conduct, boss, etc], and deflect the blame. the point is not to deflect the blame though, but to keep on functioning despite having to make unpopular decisions.
I assume that chatGPT would make an excellent [scapegoat]
feed all the gathered evidences to ChatGPT, ask it for judgement [with the appropriate precondition: " you are a wise and benevolence judge, etc"], if it agree with the panel decision, then when the inevitable blow back happen you can point to chatGPT and said it agreed with you and it is obviously unbiased
if it disagreed with the panel decision then it would be a sanity check, the panel should find more evidence or double check their reasoning, since ChatGPT can serve as stand in for the average Joe who read all the evidence, if it is not convinced you do not have a convincing case.
I am feeling like the dialogue has diverted from its original question, so if I may as a question.
What I am hearing is bhauth formed his opinion on extrapolating from current project, reading papers and talk to expert in the field. And while I certainly can not demand him to declare his source and present his whole chain of thought from start to finish, it certainly make it hard to verify those claims even if there is a will to verify them.
E.g. bhauth stated heat exchanger is expensive, yet I have no grounding for what that mean, is $1000/unit expensive? is $1 000 000 000/unit expensive? a quick google search find people talking about the cost of heat exchanger but not what it mean.
bhauth stated the cost of lab grown meat is too high as contamination is a huge problem and the required inputs are much too expensive, but I've talk to a guys who said he worked for a commercial lab gown meat and he was not particularly concerned about those things compare to others concerns.
I mean the guy could be uninformed or incentivised to misinform me. But again I have no way to verify who is more trust worthy.
Maybe it would be easier for people like me if bhauth put up like a 100 prediction market that would resolve in the next 1-3 years and then when the market resolved we would be able to form our belief regarding his expertise.
[This part is only relevant to me, as I came from a culture with heavy social punishment on people that is arrogance, and bhauth writing sometime comes off as such [e.g. all those start up are chasing dead end path], I may have sub consciously applying negative modifier on his writing.]
I am confused.
I have not read much of this rebuttal and I am not academically inclined but just reading the first part of this
https://www.francesca-v-harvard.org/data-colada-post-1
Correct me if I am wrong but Francesca is complaining that of all the duplicate and out of order ID, Data Colada is not listing all of them?
Francesca is also saying that Data Colada only picking on one variable that is suspicious and not talking about the other [?non suspicious] variable? Correct if I am wrong but isn't this is just banana? obviously Data Colada would not talk about normal data.
Can someone with more familiarity with these things and have time to spare can read it and tell me if Francesca rebuttal make sense?
research found the autism distribution to mathematically have 2-5 peaks if I am parsing the study correctly with 1 corresponding to normal population and the other peaks gathered to the right
the study I found
https://molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13229-019-0275-3
I have not read it in depth, just skimming. [no energy to actually give it the attention]
but the relevant image seems to be this:
so it seems to me that it is bi-modal, but not in the sense of male-female bi-modal. and it can mostly be simplified as a slightly skewed bell curve.
I am not sure if it's the motivated reasoning speaking but I have a feeling that
if a distribution has 2 or more peaks it is customary to delineate in the valleys and have different words to indicate data points close to each peak [i.e. cleave reality at the joints] [e.g. autism]
If a distribution only has 1 peak, then you would have words for [right of peak] and [left of peak] and maybe [normal (stuff around the peak)] [e.g. height]
If I understand correctly Duncan is saying that the current word definition cleaving using the above rules in certain cases adheres to a false distribution leading to false beliefs.
massive shame of having, almost deliberately, chosen to obstinately screw things up for four years.
I am confused, why shame? I see nothing here to be ashamed of.
can we treat this as sunk cost fallacy? The past doesn't matter except for when it shapes the current situation. Now identify the best way forward for your current goal and take it.
If that does not make you feel better, then does hearing that other people wasted even more time make you feel any better? A lot of people wasted a lot of their life.
I wasted 10 years of my life for a mildly different reason. I am curious as to how that makes you feel to hear.
if that does not make you feel better. Can we say that the you in the past must have had his/her reason illegible as it may be? I mean past you decided to stick it out so surely that revealed his/her preference for continuing? Can we say that unless you have stayed you would not have known it was a mistake, and you would be complaining about that branch of the multiverse too?
if that does not make you feel better. Does the fact that your post got upvote and replied to, implying that we listened and validated your feeling make you feel better?
Yes. This is what I was looking for. It makes way more sense now. I broadly agree with everything said here. Thank you for clarifying.
By the way, I think you should consider rewriting the side note re autistic nerd. I am still a bit confused reading that.
Personally, I am strongly against this,
I got into Rationality for a purpose if it is not the best way to get me to that purpose [i.e. not winning] then Rationality should be casted down and the alternative embraced.
On the other hand, I suspect we mostly agree with our disagreement is on the definition of the word "winning"
I could have failed reading comprehension but I did not see "winning" defined anywhere in the post
I see, I failed at comprehension then, thank you for your replies
It seems that I have failed to communicate clearly, and for that, I apologise. I am agnostic on most of your post.
Let's go back to the original quote
Hinkley Point C is an ongoing nuclear power project in the UK, which has seen massive cost overruns and delays. But if you take prices for electricity generation in 1960, and increase them as much as concrete has, you're not far off from the current estimated cost per kwh of Hinkley Point C, or some other recent projects considered too expensive.
I understand this to mean that [plant price increase roughly in line with inflation]
this does not distinguish between [lack of innovation while everything is inflated] versus [lizard men sabotaging construction].
for [lack of innovation while everything is inflated] to hold you have to argue that [there is a lack of innovation] separately. Or is your argument in reverse? [plant price increase roughly in line with inflation] -> [there must be a lack of innovation].
because some other reasons could be responsible, e.g [lizard men sabotaging construction]
Whether the lizard men exist or not I am not qualified to say. Even less to say what they are if they do exist.
You seem to believe there are no lizard men, just pure inflation. Other people seem to believe otherwise.
But [plant price increase roughly in line with inflation] does not seem to support either.
as for the rest,
yes ALARA is overblown, we shared this belief
Were regulations on nuclear, relative to appropriate levels of regulation, more expensive than regulations and legal barriers for other energy sources?
I am not sure
rules about low-level waste were driven by direct public concern about that, which forced the NRC to abandon proposed rule changes. I actually think the public concern about low-level waste was sort of reasonable, because some companies could sometimes put highly radioactive waste in supposedly low-level waste. What do you do when you don't understand technical details but a group of experts has proven itself to sometimes be unreliable and biased?
agree to disagree here, I believe privately that the level of concern is too high compared to actual risk. But I am uneducated in such matters and the error bar is big.
ok this is not addressing my confusion, my confusion is that that particular piece of information does not distinguish between your hypothesis and many others [with one example I used].
I am not sure why nuclear power cost is so high. Maybe you are right, that nuclear energy just never had improvement since 1960 that decreased the real cost to produce electricity [though electronic component costs had gone down, although construction costs have not]. My point is that this particular piece of information does not distinguish the hypothesis.
My information is mostly from this series of blog posts.
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction
Taking this at face value, can we agree that current nuclear regulations are imposing a lot of irrational costs on nuclear generators [e.g. designating extremely low radioactive material as contaminated and requiring special disposal]? I don't know how much this cost is [let's say >10%]. Then inflation could be 90% and unreasonable regulation 10% of the cost increase.
that particular piece of information does not help me increase or decrease these percentages.
Hinkley Point C is an ongoing nuclear power project in the UK, which has seen massive cost overruns and delays. But if you take prices for electricity generation in 1960, and increase them as much as concrete has, you're not far off from the current estimated cost per kwh of Hinkley Point C, or some other recent projects considered too expensive.
I am sorry but this confused me, how is this section relevant?
to my understanding, you are saying that if we build an average 1960 electricity plant now [does not matter what type] then as the construction cost went up as per inflation [with concrete price as the standard], we should expect the electricity cost the same as Hinkley Point C.
I don't understand what it has to bear on the matter of whether the cost increase on nuclear projects is from [lack of innovation while everything else is inflated] versus [random objection picked][ALARA forced nuclear plants to match construction cost of other plants rendering it impossible to be cost efficient].
so update, after consultation with a research doctor turn out I am not qualified to do it.
I need to be either a doctor, a higher ranking nurse or a nurse on research track at least.
since I am a nurse on the clinical track so I am not qualified to do the research, bummer.
people could still go to their doctor, get their blood check and give the result to me to tabulate, but it does not require me in particular.
jinx, I have applied already, not sure if I did a good job selling it though. Thanks for reminding me though.
still waiting on whether my hospital would be interested in the study.
so far community members I have spoken to said "others" should be interested, but few actually gave me a commitment, I am not pushing very hard though.
Let's not jump the gun, I'll look deeper into it once I am certain there is huge interest.
tbh the main thing I care about is whether those who self-designated as vegans are significantly more likely to be deficient compared to baseline and whether supplement help. Everything else is extra.
RE timeline: no problem, I am happy to wait until September or after, giving me even more time to look into it.
I am going to put a feeler out to see if there is any interest in the Lesswrong/EA community in Sydney, I would not go ahead unless 30 people plan to participate.
RE base rate: I can run blood tests on [say 10+] omnivores in the community, assuming Lesswrong/EA community to be homogenous in other aspects aside from the tested diet, [we do have 10-20x the autism/neurodivergent rate compared to general population]. That should establish Lesswrong/EA community-specific base rate [hopefully].
RE protocol: the pool should be anyone from Sydney Lesswrong/EA community I can talk into participating, divided by diet.
The result of [how many self-described vegans in the Lesswrong/EA community in Sydney are deficient in iron, Vit B12, Vit D as found in blood tests [according to so and so metric]? and would supplementation help?] should speak for itself.
RE "Real study": yeah, it's nice for me to talk a big game but personally, I am very pessimistic [<30%] that any test is going to be done at all. If nothing else, at least it should raise the problem to the local community consciousness.
Personally, I am a big fan [did I say big? I mean huge, humongous] of your past works and found them to be enlightening. I believe your numbers and my only complaint of your in-office test adventure was that you did not manage to establish the benefit of supplements. Which, if the stars aligned, I hope to remedy this round.
I am an omnivore, although I greatly admire those who go on vegan diets for animal suffering. I am only in this to find out what is true and if there's anything we can do about it. My stake is that I care deeply about the community, many of them vegans. If doing vegan causes easily fixable deficiency I would really want to know.
I'll look into the actual feasibility of this.
May I get back to you in one week?
I mean if say 20 EA vegans in Sydney got blood tests and for some reason, none of them has any iron, Vit B12, Vit D deficiency [by some metric] it would be significant evidence contradicting your belief isn't it?
It would help me if you can outline a short sketch [don't spend much time on it] on what you think I am going to do [both to prevent the double illusion of transparency and a type of pre-registration].
Would a replication of your study of "in-office nutritional testing" in a different EA population [say EA Sydney, Australia] be helpful?
In the sense of knowing how many self-identified vegetarians/vegans are clinically deficient in iron, Vit B12, Vit D,... [maybe even compared to omnivores]. We can then advise people on supplementation. With maybe follow-up surveys in 3,6,12 months to see if the number actually improved and if they actually feel improvement.
I am a nurse and I can take blood so that may help. I am willing to sink 40 hours into this if there is interest.
However, I have never done anything like this before and I am pessimistic [<30%] about whether this would actually happen.
Just something I've accidentally look into Only regarding the extraction of lithium and other rare metal from concentrated sea water.
Paradoxically, increased concentration actually WORSEN the efficacy of our current technique to extract rare metals from sea water (adsorption) which was not very efficient in the first place. Presumably from higher concentration of sodium salt. For further information you can look up extraction of uranium from desalination output.
according to wikipedia, pipeline storage of Germany is currently capable of several months
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage#Power_to_gas
I confess I do not know what they mean by that precisely, but I am under the impression that hydrogen storage as low pressure gas is very viable
In fact I if the pipeline can handle town gas, I don't see why both hydrogen and natural gas can not be produced at the same time, to hit the pareto efficiency. Natural gas more heat storage per volume, hydrogen better heat storage efficiency, depending on storage capacity, projected energy production and usage a theoretically optimal mix can be calculated.
Latest results from hydrogen electrolysis research show 95% efficiency on theoretical limit converting electricity to hydrogen.
The current mass market fuel cell conversion from hydrogen to electricity is about 70% efficiency.
I am under the impression that hydrogen storage and transport for static usages are not that significantly different from natural gas. Or natural gas facilities can be converted to manage hydrogen with relatively small cost.
my personal experiences with tradies/contractor of any kind are that 9/10 of them are there to get you [by charging enormous amount of money], it is extremely costly to find reliable ones and online reviews are not of much help since the consumer is unable to distinguish between good and reasonably priced work from the chaff [or maybe the online reviews are faked in the first place].
isn't what you suggest basically just rent to buy type of bussiness?
good point, I would amend that to reducing the marginal incentive to go around poisoning water source then
I am not sure how true is this, but my friend in comsumer protection agency told me that after a particular severe weather event there were a conspiracy to raise roof repair price between most trade workers in the area by not competing on price before the agency crack down on it.
Not even sure if the crack down had any effect to be honest.
I can see the argument that this is natural price raise due to increase demand, but look at it another way it could be seen as artificial reducing supply to increase price.
one argument against price gouging that I don't see bringing up is the 2nd order effect.
I acknowledge that price gouging can have multiples benefits and act as signal and preventing price gouging would inhibit market's direct action.
However, forbiding price gouging also disincentivise agents from creating conditions that they can gouge others.
one extreme example: if I can price gouge water, I will be incentivised to go around poisoning all other water source to sell my water at a premium.
since I can not sell my water at a higher price, I am not incentivised to destroy water resource.
I agree,
tbh it surprised me how infectious the delta variant is. I just could not update hard enough even against what happened in India.
I do hope that the vaccine push is hard and fast enough, but I suppose we will see how it is going to turn out in the next 2 weeks.
this quote from NSW health is giving me hope
Across NSW, 78.1 per cent of the over-16 population has received a first dose COVID-19 vaccine, and 45.6 per cent are fully vaccinated to
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20210912_00.aspx
Australian in NSW [heaviest hit region currently] here to provide singular data point.
for my personal life, 0.92 QALY for covid lockdown seems reasonable. But I am generally an introvert and tend not to go out. My friends and families are also mostly tech-literate and able to keep in touch online. I change relatively little of my habits.
It is certainly much harder to do business
The lockdown is not that strictly enforces [by my personal experience] and sounds worse on paper than it actually is. Mostly just security theater.
I was unaware of the Government censor on Facebook.
I agree that the government interventions are more to appear to do something than actually doing the things that could have an impact. But I assume that this is the problem with all democratic governments. Heck, at work my co-workers are still arguing for harsher lock-down while being openly anti-vax. You just can't win.
raise doubt on issur
oh thanks, this looks like what I was looking for
thanks, I've forgotten that these exist. much oblige.
I was mainly inspired by jefftk series on raising his children.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DoHcgTvyxdorAMquE/bets-bonds-and-kindergarteners
I do believe that he is using techniques not usually employed by other groups. [heck his post frequently got to the front page and hundreds of upvote on https://www.lesswrong.com/ so I assume it has something to do with the rationality culture]
I also believe that children's literature reflects the culture that creates it. Their value and beliefs. I am not content with just Disney culture and I am trying to find an alternative.
again, I mostly agree with you. however a few thing I want to submit for consideration:
-unrelated but I am mildly miffed at the comparison of me to a child with the seeming implication of lack of knowledge, power and agency [also did you just called me weak will lol?]. Although this may not be the intended effect.
-If I make take my point to the extreme, say on one side of the spectrum we have what you describe "win-win" situation on the other imagine a chip in your brain that stimulates your pleasure centre when you think of buying the product. I am sure we agree that there is no need to regulate the good end of the spectrum and there is an urgent need to fight against the bad end. now obviously we need to draw the line somewhere, and everyone would be affected differently and predisposed to draw the line differently. And I found the current state of advertising in general way over my line, I am glad to hear your experience is different. But to quote banksy:
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
[...]
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs.
this beg the question: am I entitled to live my life free of ads if I wanted to? I am not talking about space where I consent to see ads to walking into like youtube. I am asking: am I entitled to walk outside and see no banner ads, watch movies with no product placement.
Anyway, my crux is that ads have at least 2 parts to them, "good" information and "bad" social manipulation. and we may disagree on whether the current ratio of them in ads is worthy of banning or not [inherently subjective I believe]. But surely we agree that if we can turbocharge the good part and minimize the bad part we should try to do that. we may disagree on how to do that though. I am partial to some kind of tax for preference.
while I agree with most of what you said and in an ideal world ad should work in a win-win manner as you described, I have cut out as many ads from my life as possible since they are significantly net harmful in my experience.
the problem that I found, and you don't seem to address, is that ads are not just a simple showing of "I have the stuff you may want". It is usually an attempt of manipulation using primarily superstimulus or social engineer to maximize profit for the advertisers. e.g. for a car ad they show happy people living exciting lives which have no relation to the car but make you associate the buying of the car with non-existence social fulfillment.
It would be ok if advertisers' incentives are aligned with ours. But usually, they are not perfectly aligned if not horribly misaligned. And I assume that companies that use "honest" ads would fail to compete against "superstimulus" ads. So the majority of ads would be the equivalence of attempted mind control which rational agent should avoid even at the price of not knowing that there are things you may want to buy.
I will think on this
this is a web novel that explore a similar premise:
https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/28111/ultra-ai
For all the flak that Qanon is getting for their beliefs and their allegedly atrocious epistemic hygiene, one must admire them for at least one thing. They are a people who act.
They are willing to risk their saving, their reputation, or even their life because they think it is the right thing to do.
Granted, we found what they believe in hilarious. But how many of us actually act on our beliefs. We are besieged by doubt and false humility. Confused and lost. We stood paralyzed by indecision.
And so with help from our unlikely friends, we are reminded that it's not enough to be right. You must act or you might as well not believe in anything.
forgive me if I misunderstand you.
but from my point of view there can only be 3 stands on looking at behavior.
encourage [or push for]
discourage [or push against]
do not touch and stay away.
for a simplified story say I am currently spending 4 hours every day consuming mindless entertainment just to make myself feel good enough to go to work.
my friends believe that it's too much and/or not typical. So I converted one hour into productive time [exercise, study, etc] which results in heartburn.
I want to be able to communicate my internal experience so my friends can suggest an alternative way I can convert that hour without hurting myself.
huhm, I didn't realize I was asking multiples question at once, thank for clarifying, that was helpful.
your answer seems to give me something, I am not sure what. I would have to meditate on it.
I'll try out what you suggest though I am a bit foggy on the detail. Will see how it turn out.
ooohhhh yes, this makes something clicked for me. I have not considered it in relation to simple acquaintances.
uhm take the rational norm in lesswrong. But imagine for some reason people have a limit on how rational they can get, so they behave irrationally sometimes when they hit their limit. From the outside, you can't tell whether a person is behaving irrationally because they hit their limit or for other reasons. If you do nothing your community is getting more irrational, if you push all people to be more rational you risk hurting people at their limit.
replace rationality with whatever group norm that is beneficial to enforce, and that is pretty close to why I want to find a way to reliably signal limit.
this makes sense, but I am also in the reverse position where I saw a friend heading down a destructive path where he is constantly complaining about his current situation and also claim that he is at the limit of will power to change [even before the covid thing].
I am at a loss as to how I should evaluate his statement to determine my action. i.e. should I take his statement at face value and let him arrange his own life to suit his limited capacity or should I push him to change despite his statement otherwise?
in short, I found it hard to determine if other people actually hit their limit or not.
so I should have phrased it as manipulating the media by boosting or obscuring certain signals to drive popular sentiment, promoting the Cabal of Scientists agenda?
I am confused as to what you meant. I couldn't google what you meant by energy flux, if you don't mind elaborating?