Comment by joachim-bartosik on What's the best way for me to improve my English pronounciation? · 2019-01-04T22:23:07.611Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

It seems I misunderstood the level of English pronaunciaction you're at and the level you're aiming for. Could you clarify?

What I wrote in my comment is what made me comfortable with speaking in English. I got some compliments for my English later and some surprised answers when I said I wasn't a native speaker (which I count as weak and strongish evidence respectively for being good at spoken English). Im not sure I did much else but I might be able to write how I leveled up if I know for which level up you're looking (in case you read but don't reply: most likely the answer is practice(prefferably in a way that rewards you of it self)).

Comment by joachim-bartosik on What's the best way for me to improve my English pronounciation? · 2019-01-03T19:59:38.877Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Upboat for recommendation that I think wouldn't work for me but looks like it would work for many other people. It's always interesting to see those (at least for me ;) ).

Comment by joachim-bartosik on What's the best way for me to improve my English pronounciation? · 2019-01-03T19:03:47.005Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I guess this depends a lot on what kind of person you are. What worked for me was:

  • talking to people who don't know my native laguage. To do it I had to speak clearly enough to be understood. And I was interested in those people which madeit easier for me to put a bit of effort to make my pronaunciaction clear. Go on vacaction with people from other nations. Go to events where you can talk to foreigners. Those kinds of things.
  • listening to English. Watching movies, listening to podcasts, ...

Basically exposing myself to spoken English in ways that were rewarding on their own.

Comment by joachim-bartosik on What is abstraction? · 2018-12-15T20:51:05.802Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I think there is no reason to expect a single meaning of the word. You did a good job in enumerating uses of 'abstraction' and finding its theme (removed from specific). I don't understand what confusion remains though.

Comment by joachim-bartosik on Policy Beats Morality · 2018-10-18T18:15:33.892Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

A link/ googleable phrase for KonMarie, phrase?

Comment by joachim-bartosik on A breakdown of priors and posteriors - an example from medicine · 2018-10-03T22:48:12.225Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I kept on reading and wanted to check your numbers further (concrete math I could do in my head seems correct but I wanted to check moar) but I got lost in my tiredness and spreadseets. If you're interested in feedback on the math you're doing.. smaller steps are easier to verify. For example when you give the formula for P(D|+) in order to verify it I have to check the formula, value of each conditional probability (including figuring out formula for each of those), and the result at the same time.

It would be much easier to verify if you wrote down the intermediate steps (possibly simplifying verification from 30 minutes of spredsheet munching to a few in-head multiplications).

Comment by joachim-bartosik on A breakdown of priors and posteriors - an example from medicine · 2018-10-03T21:52:25.557Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'm pretty sure you got math wrong here:

O(D:¬D), read as the odds of dementia to no dementia, is the odds ratio that D is true compared to the odds ratio that D is false. O(D:¬D)=3:1 means that it's 3 times as likely that somebody has dementia than that they don't. It doesn't say anything about the magnitude of the probability, so it could be small, like 3% and 1%, or big, like 90% and 30%.

P(D or ¬D) = 1 (with P=1 one either has dementia or doesn't have it) and P(D and ¬D) = 0 (probability of having dementia and not having it is 0), so if O(D:¬D)=3:1 then P(D) = 75% and P(¬D) = 25%.

I mean in your examples.. if :P(D) = 3% and P(¬D) = 1% then what happens in other 96+% of cases (when patient neither has dementia nor doesn't have it)? If P(D) = 90% and P(¬D) = 30% what is the state of the 20+% of patients who both have dementia and don't have it?

Comment by joachim-bartosik on Tradition is Smarter Than You Are · 2018-09-22T18:54:38.626Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'm half way through the article and it's been an interesting read so far but I got to this sentence:

> But that is the trouble: we have no way to tell which traditions are adaptive and which are merely drift.

The article (so far) didn't provide evidence for that. I'd even say that the article provides some evidence against this claim. It describes a bunch of traditions, identifies them as useful, and explains why they're useful. I thik there are exaples of traditions that people identified as useless (or harmful). Like using torture to extract confessions (I hope this is an example old enough to not be controversial).

So far my impression is that the article makes a good case for "distinguishing useful traditions is hard" and provides a few examples of traditions for which reasons why they're good require way more knowledge than people executing those traditions have. Still saying it's impossible seems wrong.

On the other hand pointing out that we might invent a wrong explanation for a tradition (removing bitternes from manioc) and screw up the clean up process is a good point.

Comment by joachim-bartosik on On memetic weapons · 2018-09-02T07:19:23.223Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW
so i kinda expected those. so do you know of any evidence that people's minds where changed significantly or mostly due to debate/discussion? polls? surveys? ???

If debate / discussion doesn't actually change people minds then it's totally safe to let anyone defend whatever nonsense they want, they're not going to change anyones mind anyway.

Comment by joachim-bartosik on Fixing science via a basic income · 2018-08-02T20:17:19.204Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I think the last parahraph of your comment agrees with the post:

"... if you try to measure skill and then pick people based on how well they performed on your measure, you’re actually selecting for skill + luck rather than pure skill."

Comment by joachim-bartosik on What are your plans for the evening of the apocalypse? · 2018-08-02T17:02:58.126Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I assume "every one finds out for sure" means something like everyone being about as convinced as they are about global warming, Any stronger conviction means something really weird is going on so I have no idea what would happen.

I'd expect something similar to what happens to people in doomsday cults (probably with less cultishness, because people in those cults did join a cult unlike most humans).

I'm not an expert on those but my impression is that the upcoming apocalypse has very little effect on their lives.

So... a couple news cycles about the revelation, another round before the event. Maybe a movie. I wouldn't expect much more than we got for 2012 apocalypse. Maybe some small groups doing good/ evil/ extreme hedonism/ trying to avert it but I think almost everyone would basically ignore it.

And given how such revelations tend to pan out they'd be right to.

Comment by joachim-bartosik on Goodhart Taxonomy: Agreement · 2018-07-05T14:37:35.448Z · score: 9 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I understood Regressional vs Extremal like that:

  • Signal is a victim of Regressional goodheart if it's a good indicator of thing you care about but stops working the moment you start optimizing for it. for example empty email inbox is a decent signal for me having taken care of things I need to do but if I do the obvious optimization and set up a filter to delete all incoming email...
  • Signal is a victim of Extreme Goodheart if optimizing for it works well. Until you get to values that are very high when it suddenly sops working. For example if I increased fraction of time I spend exercising I expect I would keep getting healthier for a while. But I expect that if was exercising so much I'd need to take stimulants to be able to move time from sleep to exercise I'd be hurting myself.

So I think those are mutually exclusive (you can't have optimizing signal both fail immediately and keep working for a while).

Comment by joachim-bartosik on Simplified Poker · 2018-06-04T17:12:39.684Z · score: 10 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Can my program use history of hands it player against the current opponent? What about history of hands the opponent player against others?

Comment by joachim-bartosik on Against accusing people of motte and bailey · 2018-06-04T15:05:34.755Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I don't think so(EDIT: I don't think that looks like a new, separate "accuse people who are not making a motte-and-bailey fallacy of making a motte-and-bailey fallacy", it looks like something else to me). I think the situation is that there is a label for group A+B+C. Someone doesn't care about content made by group A+B+C because they perceive it as having motte-bailey doctrine.

This sounds like a bucket error (where one should get more content from A and ignore B and C) but I think it's not feasible to make new bucket that would capture only interesting people.

I haven't been in conversation where there was a problem like that. But I guess I'd try pointing out that:

- There's some good content,

- There's some bad content,

- They can checkout (specific examples) of content known to be high quality

- If they're interested in getting all of the worthwhile content they'll have to filter. Same as everywhere else.

Does it sound like something that could work?

Comment by joachim-bartosik on Effective Altruism's Ultimate Goal: Eradicate Human Suffering. · 2018-04-25T21:04:53.526Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I sure hope Effective Altruism's Ultimate Goal is not to Eradicate Human Suffering. Because there is a way to achieve that goal that available to humanity as-is but it's awful. Just need to make sure that there are no humans.

I understand that's not what you describe here (and I don't think that's a solution you'd endorse). But... I think it's important to avoid committing to wrong goals.

Comment by joachim-bartosik on You Are Being Underpaid · 2018-04-16T21:37:33.133Z · score: 6 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Nice. I have a question and a couple of suggestions:

  • Company that currently employs me doesn't expect candidates to know answers to "trivia" questions. During interviews we allow candidates to make up any reasonable API they might want to use. Do you think answer like "I didn't use Filter() in a while so I'd look it up details before actually using it(a few minutes of reading documentation vs hours of debugging). Roughly it..." would work well (for something you don't use so often you know it by heart)?
  • I think making the interview pleasant for your interviewer does increase your chance of success / good feedback in case the company rejects you. I don't see it mentioned in advice I read. Maybe it's just obvious for almost everyone but me but I think mentioning that can really help people who have technical skills but didn't think about it.
  • One really useful piece of advice I got when I was interviewing was to practice answering interview questions by writing on paper / whiteboard. I had to write code using one of those during my interviews and I would have much more trouble if my writing speed was as low as it was when I started practicing (after limiting myself to writing using keyboard for some years).
Comment by joachim-bartosik on Hufflepuff Cynicism on Hypocrisy · 2018-03-30T16:46:58.636Z · score: 15 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I think you're mixing a few questions that seem distinct to me:

1. Are there good reasons to be suspicious of advice that advice giver doesn't follow themselves?

2. Is there a good reason to support social norms against hypocrisy?

3. Are there good reasons to avoid giving advice that I don't follow myself?

@1. I think hypocrisy is always a evidence for the advice being poor. It's not a very strong evidence. If I can easily check sources, reasoning and evaluate results of taking the advice it's probably not worth worrying much about it.

But sometimes it's only evidence you get that social norms allow you to use.

@2. I think so. You might need those norms yourself to get out of situation when social norms don't let you use some other evidence you have.

You might want to keep them in place so that other people who are in situations where they can't use some evidence they have because of social norms to get out.

@3. I think it's ok to offer advice that you don't follow yourself but I try to include a warning for recipient to be more cautious if they try to follow it[0].

[0] Assume I want the recipient to do well.