Comment by ericf on Covid 12/3: Land of Confusion · 2020-12-05T05:03:28.416Z · LW · GW

Editing the blog posts for "front page tone" would delay the posting by some appreciable time. Perhaps just one hour, if someone could commit to doing it as soon as zvi has his version completed. Or perhaps a 12-24 hour delay if someone is going to do it when it's convenient for themselves on Thursday.

I would volunteer to do the second level of effort. My only credential is that I am willing to do it.

Comment by ericf on The Darwin Game - Conclusion · 2020-12-04T18:41:13.387Z · LW · GW

Ah, right, I misread that code.

If there's a time limit on running, a quick "loop until 75% of the time limit is used up" will stop any simulator from running more than 1 turn of simulation.

Comment by ericf on The Darwin Game - Conclusion · 2020-12-04T16:07:14.172Z · LW · GW

A Bully Bot could actually do pretty well here (even without attempting simulation) - you get to exploit all the Silly bots, get the most you can out of the Clone army (more than 50% at the beginning when they are willing to back down, 40% once you have to be Fold Bot against them) and still cooperate or cooperate+ against everyone else (especially if you can trick simulators or pseudo-simulators into folding to you)                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Comment by ericf on Luna Lovegood and the Chamber of Secrets - Part 3 · 2020-12-02T15:57:16.145Z · LW · GW

Harry speculates that the marauders stole part of the Hogwarts security system, but he's not necessarily a reliable narrator.

Other fics imply that the map might have read-only access to the Hogwarts Wards/wardstone, in which case the Chamber would not have been there until the wards were adjusted to allow entry.

Comment by ericf on [Answer] Why wasn't science invented in China? · 2020-12-02T14:53:23.421Z · LW · GW

Worth a re-read. This is a humble, but extensive look at an interesting question, and a good model for future inquiry.

Comment by ericf on Asymmetric Justice · 2020-12-02T14:36:18.281Z · LW · GW

This pointed out a fallacy in my own (subconcious) thinking, and inspired me to correct it.

Comment by ericf on Moderator's Dilemma: The Risks of Partial Intervention · 2020-11-29T22:12:37.080Z · LW · GW

This is a good perspective from off-site:

Comment by ericf on The Mutant Game - Rounds 31 to 90 · 2020-11-28T16:10:18.487Z · LW · GW

Even in mutant land, playing 2323232323..... is the best no-complexity strategy.

Comment by ericf on Pain is the unit of Effort · 2020-11-25T19:32:50.880Z · LW · GW

Note: survivorship bias warning. We don't know how many counterfactual lsusr clones died or were permanently disabled after pushing too hard.

Note 2: privilege bias warning. Lsusr doesn't mention how much of a financial and social safety net he had, but given he had a failed startup and tried again implies way more Maslow level 0-2 stability than most people.

Comment by ericf on It’s not economically inefficient for a UBI to reduce recipient’s employment · 2020-11-24T16:41:13.457Z · LW · GW

Most people who cook spend way more than half an hour a day cooking (and cleaning up afterwards, which has to be included). 

More critically, spending 25% of your non-work/non-sleep time exercising is a very different proposition than spending < 10% of that time.

Comment by ericf on A voting theory primer for rationalists · 2020-11-24T00:24:06.095Z · LW · GW

It seems like a lot of the challenges in designing a voting system stem from wanting to give each geographic region "their" representative, while not letting people "throw away" their vote.

If we abandon the first part (which is totally reasonable here in the 21st century, with the takeover of digital communication and virtual communities), there is a clean solution to the second part.

Specifically, remove all the names from the ballot, and have people only vote for their preferred party, then allow each party that gets more than [small]% of the vote to designate a representative, who has voting power equal to the number of votes they got (or round it off in some way, to improve legibility and avoid recount recriminations). Those 10-20 unequal voters then meet, discuss, compromise, vote, etc. on the actual legislative proposals (as representatives of their parties, so everything would also get vetted by the party elites in some way). Thus, each individual can find or found the party that most closely matches their own values, and their vote is never "wasted" because at worst their minor party just votes with the closest major party, but that decision gets made by informed political actors, who know their relative voting power and the true positions of the other parties, not masses of deliberately-lied-to people who don't know if there are enough [new party] members to unseat [existing party].

Comment by ericf on It’s not economically inefficient for a UBI to reduce recipient’s employment · 2020-11-23T21:19:39.680Z · LW · GW

The marginal cost of producing something might fall to the price of the electricity + hardware depreciation, but the cost of delivering that product to a customer (marketing, sales, transporting, support, etc) will always be present. Also, too, if the thing has value, and can't be produced easily (eg high cost of entry to buy or build the automation) producers will be able to collect profits.

Comment by ericf on The Darwin Game - Rounds 21-500 · 2020-11-21T20:23:48.540Z · LW · GW

Congratulations to the two oscillator bots for lasting longest with no complexity, even beating out "silly 2" and TFT. Interesting how much variance there was among the 4 TFT bots based only on what they played first!

Comment by ericf on The Pointers Problem: Human Values Are A Function Of Humans' Latent Variables · 2020-11-21T18:31:58.444Z · LW · GW

I agree with your comment, but I think it's a scale thing. If I analyze every time you walk into a room, and every time you kiss someone, I can derive that you kiss [specific person] when you see them after being apart. And this is already being done in corporate contexts with Deep Learning for specific questions, so it's just a matter of computing power, better algorithms, and some guidance at to the relevant questions and variables.

Comment by ericf on The Pointers Problem: Human Values Are A Function Of Humans' Latent Variables · 2020-11-20T14:51:06.294Z · LW · GW

I was attempting to answer the first point, so let me rephrase: Even though your ability to affect prisoners in North Korea is miniscule, we can still look at how much of it you're doing. Are you spending any time seeking out ways you could be affecting them? Are you voting for and supporting and lobbying politicians who are more likely to use their greater power to affect the NK prisoner's lives? Are you doing [unknown thing that the AI figures out would affect them]? And, also, are you doing anything that is making their situation worse? Or any other of the multiple axis of being, since happiness isn't everything, and even happiness isn't a one-dimentional scale.

"Who counts as a moral agent? (And should they all have equal weights)" Is a question of philosophy, which I am not qualified to answer. But "who gets to decide the values to teach" it's one meta-level up from the question of "how do we teach values", so I take it as a given for the latter problem.

Comment by ericf on The Pointers Problem: Human Values Are A Function Of Humans' Latent Variables · 2020-11-19T18:39:21.290Z · LW · GW

With reference specifically to this:

The happiness of people I will never interact with is a good example of this. There may be people in the world whose happiness will not ever be significantly influenced by my choices. Presumably, then, my choices cannot tell us about how much I value such peoples’ happiness. And yet, I do value it.

and without considering any other part of the structure, I have an alternate view:

It is possible to determine if and how much you value the happiness (or any other attribute) of people you will never interact with by calculating

  1. What are the various things you, personally, could have done in the past [time period], and how would they have affected each of the people, plants, animals, ghosts, etc. that you might care about?
  2. What things did you actually do?
  3. How far away from your maximum impact / time were you for each entity you could have affected. (scaled in some way tbd)
  4. Derive values and weights from that. For example, if I donate $100 to Clean Water for Africa, that implies that I care about Clean Water & Africa more than I care about AIDS and Pakistan, and the level there depends on how much $100 means to me. If that's ten (or even two) hours of work to earn it that's a different level of commitment than if it represents 17 minutes of owning millions in assets.
  5. Run the calculation for all desired moral agents, to average out won't-ever-see-them effects.
Comment by ericf on Thoughts on Voting Methods · 2020-11-18T17:28:55.854Z · LW · GW

While the system should discourage utility transfers, if you build in a bias against transfers of nominal wealth, that favors certain political platforms over others.

Comment by ericf on The tech left behind · 2020-11-18T01:38:31.257Z · LW · GW

Depending on your sensitivity filter, there are over 300,000 US patents, of which perhaps 10% have been incorporated into a commercially successful product.

Comment by ericf on Limits of Current US Prediction Markets (PredictIt Case Study) · 2020-11-17T23:39:24.795Z · LW · GW

If you are going to try to make $ via prediction markets, consult an actual licensed tax preparer, cpa, or financial advisor. You will likely have to set up a business of some sort (flat filing fee in most states in the hundreds of dollars range) in order to properly net out your costs against your winnings. The 2016 tax law changed the rules about hobby and gambling income to no longer allow you to deduct your costs, unless you itemize, which means unless you were already close to itemizing you end up paying 15% of your gross winnings, not of your net.

Comment by ericf on Thoughts on Voting Methods · 2020-11-17T21:25:18.437Z · LW · GW

Structural effects are, indeed, super important. Deciding what the options are (or even just what order the options are presented in: imagine United States elections, but with the general election held first (voting only for party) and then the party with the most votes picks the officeholder afterwards - you get a very different set of incentives).

Also, knowing how others are going to vote: as detailed elsewhere, if there are two close options, the exact mechanics of the election and the knowledge available to strategic voters can allow either (or neither) of them to win, even with the same set of preferences in the population.

Comment by ericf on Ongoing free money at PredictIt · 2020-11-13T02:22:04.924Z · LW · GW

It's nuanced. Apparently you do need to be itemizing deductions: On the plus side, if you keep each individual payout below $600, you can avoid it entirely. I see that the rules were likely changed with the Trump tax changes in 2016, I apologize for spreading outdated information.

Comment by ericf on Covid 11/12: The Winds of Winter · 2020-11-12T17:49:21.919Z · LW · GW

Which claims, specifically, do you have evidence against (of any weight)?

The fact that people are making mouth noises that could be interpreted as disagreeing with the accuracy of a claim (ie, the claim is contentious) is not evidence against the claim. And such mouth noises should not discourage the distribution of true information.

Comment by ericf on Ongoing free money at PredictIt · 2020-11-12T17:42:09.379Z · LW · GW

That is correct (for US taxpayers). You take all your gambling winnings, from whatever source derived, and subtract all your gambling costs to get your taxable gambling income (minimum $0/yr, no carry-over of losses). I don't know how many of the fees count, but the $85 certainly does. If you are more than an occasional gambler (eg "professional" poker player) you can do your own accounting, and report your net take. So, if you keep proper records, you should be able to report "on Jan 1, my predictit balance was $5,000. I deposited an additional $5,000 during the year, and withdrew $10,000 during the year, and ended with a balance of $7,500. Therefore, I had $7,500 in gambling winnings this year."

Comment by ericf on Is corruption a valuable antidote to overregulation? · 2020-11-12T14:06:02.883Z · LW · GW

It's important to explicitly say that at the top of your post. That goes for any morally questionable discussion. If you don't put a disclaimer like:

"Notwithstanding the facts that 1) the first order effects of regulations are to save lives and improve the physical and mental health of the people protected by them 2) allowing corruption for some things weakens protections against corruption in other areas; let us consider ..."

As the first part of your post, reasonable people might think you either didn't know those things (because nobody knows everything, and nothing is known by everyone) or didn't believe it (because millions of people act in a way consistent with believing the opposite, and you could be one of them.)

Comment by ericf on Is corruption a valuable antidote to overregulation? · 2020-11-11T02:13:34.096Z · LW · GW

Is it? You apparently didn't take "most regulation is not stifling" into account when you made your original post. And you gave the impression that you think the relative cost benefit is somewhere in the realm of reasonable (by even making the post), which implied that you might not be accounting for all the costs of "using corruption"

Comment by ericf on Is corruption a valuable antidote to overregulation? · 2020-11-11T01:26:58.483Z · LW · GW

I'm not commenting on either of those theses. Just pointing out that there are substantial costs to moving corruption from "verboten" to "kinda not ok"

In my estimation, the cost/benefit here is like burning your furniture for heat.

Comment by ericf on Is corruption a valuable antidote to overregulation? · 2020-11-10T19:41:15.154Z · LW · GW

I don't see how that's relevant to the original question. "Does X contribute to Y" is investigating "why care about X" "Can Z mitigate X" is investigating "how can we affect X" The question of "is it worth the costs of Z in order to reduce Y" is a higher level question. Analyzing it in a thread under the sub-question is the wrong place to have such a discussion.

Comment by ericf on Is corruption a valuable antidote to overregulation? · 2020-11-09T19:28:36.400Z · LW · GW

Dumping SO2 into the atmosphere isn't progress. Delivering cars without seat belts isn't progress. Building a factory without guard rails on the walkways isn't progress. I could go on. The examples of stifling regulation, even on a cursory glance, are few and far between.

Comment by ericf on Is corruption a valuable antidote to overregulation? · 2020-11-09T02:33:49.317Z · LW · GW
  1. Attempting to distinguish between stifling regulation and ordinary "prevent defections" regulation is an inherently political process.
  2. Bypassing regulations is very rarely progress
  3. Progress has both winners and losers. Often, the difference between progress and regression is only visible with hindsight (eg leaded gasoline)

So, the key question is not "is X a viable antidote to overregularion" but rather "who gets to decide when a regulation has overstayed its welcome. And any process that doesn't include the voices of those currently benefiting from the regulation (eg bribery between the enforcer and someone who wants to bypass the regulation) is not a good choice.

Comment by ericf on Sleeping Julia: Empirical support for thirder argument in the Sleeping Beauty Problem · 2020-11-03T04:56:09.722Z · LW · GW

Of you taboo "Probability" you are left with two options: "Good morning. If we ran this experiment 100 times, how many times would we flip Tails?" And "Good morning. If we ran this experiment 100 times, how many times would the correct answer to the question "what was the flip?" be Tails"

I can see how it would make sense for the convention to be that "Probability" means the second thing. Is there any deeper reasoning for picking that one, other than "it makes the math easier"?

Comment by ericf on What is the right phrase for "theoretical evidence"? · 2020-11-02T23:28:32.371Z · LW · GW

Can you cite someone else using the word evidence to refer to a theory or explanation? I can't recall ever seeing that, but it might be a translation or regional thing. As a souther california Jewish native American English speaker, saying "gravity is evidence that" just sounds wrong, like saying "a red, fast, clever fox"

Comment by ericf on What Belongs in my Glossary? · 2020-11-02T22:26:34.436Z · LW · GW

That's the mode he wrote the post in, so it warranted an extra mention

Comment by ericf on What is the right phrase for "theoretical evidence"? · 2020-11-02T06:03:23.694Z · LW · GW

I think the word you are looking for is analysis. Consider the toy scenario: You observe two pieces of evidence:

  1. A = B
  2. B = C

Now, without gathering any additional evidence, you can figure out (given certain assumptions about the gears level working of A, B, and C) that A = C. Because that takes finite time for your brain to realize, it feels like a new piece of information. However, it is merely the result of analyzing the existing evidence to generate additional equivalent statements. Of course, those new ways of describing the territory can be useful, but they shouldn't result in Baysean updates. Just like getting redundant evidence (eg 1. A = B 2. B = A) shouldn't move your estimate further than just getting one bit of evidence.

Comment by ericf on Should students be allowed to give good teachers a bonus? · 2020-11-02T01:33:25.234Z · LW · GW
  1. this advantages teachers with larger classes.
  2. as proposed, this is a relative ranking. With all the loss of team spirit that implies
  3. it's a very weak signal, especially on the "above average" side.
Comment by ericf on No Causation without Reification · 2020-10-31T01:06:38.478Z · LW · GW

At a meta-level, you are hardening my position, not moving me towards your position. While I have stated my objections and questions in, now, five different ways, you have repeated the same point five times. And without either addressing, or even attempting to rephrase my position to show you understand it. To me, this implies that you don't fully understand your thesis.

And no, I'm not necessarily describing Snorphblats. If statement 1 is true, then statement two is just mouth noises without truth value. If statement 2 is true, then statement 1 is false. And, of course, they could both be false.

Comment by ericf on No Causation without Reification · 2020-10-30T19:55:36.417Z · LW · GW

Why is this not a contradiction: "Snorphblats can't be described with words"

"Snorphblats don't have a liver"

Or, how does the above differ from the statements in my previous comment? Please use a similar analogy, if necessary.

Comment by ericf on No Causation without Reification · 2020-10-29T14:40:25.769Z · LW · GW

Based on the original post, and OP comments, it sounds like the proposal here is:

Thesis: Not once ever has causality existed in the territory.

Support: There's nothing I can say that does not involve drawing a map.

Which, to me, looks like textbook "begging the question" - OP is picking one specific thing that can be said: "A causes B" and saying "look: causality can't be in the territory because it's just an idea in the map, just like everything else."

But that provides no insight or additional information. There's nothing special about "causality" not being in the territory, any more than saying "apples" aren't in the territory or "atoms aren't in the territory" or "justice isn't in the territory" or "paradoxes aren't in the territory" 

Once you place "the territory" beyond the reach of mere words to describe, it ceases to be possible to talk about what attributes it does or does not have. You can't usefully say "the territory doesn't have causality" when you have already said "I can't talk about the territory"

Even within the meta-map that places the territory outside the reach of mere words, it remains useful to talk about the presence or absence of causality at the limit of what words can reach. Is there time at the quantum interaction level; does it behave in the same way; are there iff relationships between superstrings - I'm certainly not qualified to opine on the answers, but the questions are of at least theoretical interest. (and theory with no practicality can still be useful - imaginary numbers were just a plaything of the mind for hundreds of years, until suddenly they became the math of a key industry)

Comment by ericf on No Causation without Reification · 2020-10-29T14:12:36.032Z · LW · GW

Um, you literally just said two posts up that you can't say anything that does not involve drawing a map. That you are defining "the territory" to be out of reach of mere words.

I'm asserting that "the territory" should be defined to be at the limit of what words can describe, but still within bounds. I'm literally saying "take your meta-map of how maps & territory work, and move one inferential step towards the position "there is no map, it's all territory.""

Then, go back and review my previous questions.

Comment by ericf on No Causation without Reification · 2020-10-28T12:43:45.157Z · LW · GW

So, what is the difference between that episiotomy (anything you can say draws a map) and mine (some communication describes the territory)? Like: on what kinds of questions would they lead to different answers? Is one of them faster, or less likely to lead to errors? Is there some other distinction in effect that I just can't conceive?

Comment by ericf on No Causation without Reification · 2020-10-27T16:52:30.676Z · LW · GW

Can you give an example of describing the territory that does not include reification? I would accept "the indented torus collection of covalent bonded atoms at approximately [1' x 2 ' x 2 ' with my brain as the origin point] emits electromagnetic radiation primarily in the 650-680 nm range" (ie "That cup is red"), but I suspect that you would not.

Comment by ericf on No Causation without Reification · 2020-10-27T06:07:11.223Z · LW · GW

My constructions are, by definition, in conflict (if you assume map != territory, which is a question of definitions. Let me know if you are using those words differently). How does your thesis differ from "all communication describes a map"?

Comment by ericf on Does playing hard to get work? AB testing for romance · 2020-10-26T21:52:45.530Z · LW · GW

I would recommend getting your (cis het male) dating advice primarily from women who you know and would like to date, but who already have husbands/boyfriends. Rather than solely from other cis het males on the internet.

"Respect" in this context means treating your date as an autonomous human with an internal narrative, desires, thoughts, history, and everything else that makes you a unique person. Rather than as an inscrutable piece of software or machinery that you are trying to figure out and/or get to act in a specific way.

And the final warning isn't about experimental design, its about not tuning yourself into a paperclip maximizer (especially when what you really want is a staple)

Comment by ericf on No Causation without Reification · 2020-10-26T21:25:57.056Z · LW · GW

So, what is the difference between that episiotomy (all communication describes a map) and mine (some communication describes the territory)? Like: on what kinds of questions would they lead to different answers? Is one of them faster, or less likely to lead to errors? Is there some other distinction in effect that I just can't conceive?

Comment by ericf on Does playing hard to get work? AB testing for romance · 2020-10-26T17:17:02.924Z · LW · GW
  1. Acting on Level 2, rather than Level 1, adds additional fail conditions and stress.
  2. If your date realizes that you are "PHTG" that is, itself, a signal and will select for/against certain types of partners.
  3. Other than the "teasing her more than I normally do" and "walking in a specific place relative to her" everything in your treatment group could also be called "being a good date."

I would recommend, in your own head, think of it not in terms of "playing hard to get" but in terms of "treating your partner with respect." If you focus on helping your partner have a good time (ie, you leave the date thinking "we both had fun, but she put in way less work than I did"). Then you can see if the extra effort is producing more of what you want. 

On that note, are you clear in your own mind about what your goal is? "What does it profit a man to gain the whole [girlfriend] but lose his [happiness]" and all that.

Comment by ericf on No Causation without Reification · 2020-10-25T04:15:52.777Z · LW · GW

It sounds like you're begging the question here.

Unless you are positing strict determinism, or full timeless physics, or literal "there is no territory," a causing b just means a is either a necessary, sufficient, or both condition for b. Define a and b at whatever level you want to call the "territory."

Comment by ericf on “Prediction” and “explanation” are not causation · 2020-10-25T02:16:44.073Z · LW · GW

I was not vulnerable to this potential confusion, since my internal definition of "causes" is that the result is subject to intervention at the cause point. If I decide to not mow my lawn: A) ice cream sales don't change, even though lawnmower usage predicts Ice Cream sales (correlation) B) my grass doesn't get taller, even though grass height is partially explained by lawnmower usage C) but I won't have a bunch of grass clippings, because mowing causes grass clippings.

Comment by ericf on Yes, Virginia, You Can Be 99.99% (Or More!) Certain That 53 Is Prime · 2020-10-18T17:38:14.037Z · LW · GW

#necro, but yes. Longitudinal observation shows that the same people perform worse under pressure as amateurs, and better under pressure at the end.

Comment by ericf on Babble challenge: 50 ways of hiding Einstein's pen for fifty years · 2020-10-15T17:42:41.691Z · LW · GW

Assumptions: Evil Forces are a small cabal (20) people who will be searching for it, starting in a few months. They know you were the one who hid it, but are not willing to torture you. They can spend 50 years searching, but will then give up, and let you retrieve & sell it in peace.

  1. Bury it somewhere that won’t be randomly disturbed, and cannot be traced back to you (and make a map)
    1. An abandoned mine
    2. A patch of desert
    3. Inside a Glacier
    4. In an arbitrary grave
    5. In a dead body, buried in an arbitrary grave
    6. In someone’s garden, at least 6 feet down
    7. In the wall of an arbitrary root or wine cellar
    8. At the base of an old growth grape vine (since you know those aren’t going to get pulled up)
    9. Under the cobblestones of a newly paved street
    10. Given the time period, probably anywhere a little off the beaten path – 3 feet down, 6 feet away from a random road, and no-one would even know you were there.
  2. Have a trusted institution guard it
    1. Deposit it in a safety deposit box at a reputable bank. Probably in Switzerland.
    2. Entrust it to a church
    3. Have it guarded as a national treasure
    4. Give it to a friend who, gives it to a friend, who gives it to another who’s been messing around.
    5. Put it in a gold bar first, to enhance the security
  3. Tie it to a large piece of metal, lower it into a well on a magnent + very long string (to confirm that you can reach the bottom), pull it back up, and drop it in the well.
  4. Conceal it in a piece of construction (again, map needed)
    1. Inside an arbitrary attic
    2. Or Basement
    3. Make a brick with it inside, and install that brick in a wall somewhere
    4. Climb up a church in progress, and slip it in among the stones
    5. Inside a water pipe
    6. In a fence post
    7. Inside one of 6 identical busts of Napoleon
    8. In a wall
  5. Secretly Inter it with someone’s ashes in an urn
  6. Cut a hole in a citrus tree, insert pen, graft on a new branch to cover the hole
  7. Carve a hole in a rock, drop the pen in, place rock in an unassuming spot
  8. Cover pen with something un-digestible and feed it to a long lived animal like a Tortoise
  9. Slip it inside a family heirloom (not from your family)
  10. Put it somewhere very public and secure, like the entry to a police station, but secured so it can’t be stolen without a lot of work (locks/boxes etc)
  11. Put it inside a grandfather clock. Those don’t get disassembled, and are highly likely to remain in the same place for 50 years.
  12. Glue in some out-of-the-way place in a semi-public boiler room. Somewhere that doesn’t get cleaned.
  13. Stick it to the bottom of an ocean ship. It will get barnacled over before the ship comes back to port. Just keep an eye on it, and make sure you get to it before it gets scrapped
  14. Create a duplicate, hide it badly, and let it be stolen. Just keep the real one in a safe at your house.
  15. Keep the pen on you, and hide your own identity
    1. Go to some arbitrary colony and give them a fake name & change your appearance
    2. Live in the wilds of Canada
    3. Join the French Foreign Legion, or equivalent
    4. Murder someone and assume their identity
    5. Change your appearance in some dramatic way, like removing a leg
    6. Change your apparent gender
    7. Just go to a big city. No-one keeps track of every new resident, and there isn’t a photo of you for reference anyway.
  16. Put it on something that’s always moving, like a piece of an automatic loom, so it can’t be removed
  17. Give it to someone else to hide, with instructions that they should pass it on to someone you don’t know (have the map delivered back to you via delayed Western Union delivery)
  18. Mail it to your fake identity in a foreign country, pick it up and re-mail it ad-infinium.
  19. Carefully cut your leg open, and secrete it inside. Conceal scar with pants.
  20. Glue it to the ceiling. No one ever looks up when searching.
  21. In the spine of a random library book
  22. Dissasemble the pen, hide the component pieces in reasonable places. Re-assemble in 50 years.
  23. Replace one part of the pen with a new piece, but keep the old piece. Repeat until you have enough parts to create a second pen from the original parts. Repeat with both “original” pens. Each time one of your duplicates gets stolen, assemble a new “original” pen.
  24. Don’t worry about it. There’s nothing special about Mr. Einstein or the pen. If not him with that pen, someone else or a different writing implement would be used at about that time in history to develop those theories.
Comment by ericf on How much to worry about the US election unrest? · 2020-10-14T15:31:18.560Z · LW · GW
  1. Statements by a private, albeit famous and moderately popular, citizen are inherently different than statements from an elected official, especially the head of the executive branch.
  2. Statements about other people are inherently different than statements about the speaker.
  3. Is either side actually saying that they will "look closely at the results" or is that your interpretation of the actual statements?
Comment by ericf on How much to worry about the US election unrest? · 2020-10-13T04:05:14.973Z · LW · GW

"I can only lose due to shenanigans" and "maybe I'll just stay in office" are miles apart in terms of how troubling they are. One is a prediction about other people, and the other is a prediction about the speaker's future actions.

//of course, given the speaker of the second statement, I assign epsilon weight to it as evidence either way.