Posts
Comments
Federal highway officials hate us, tell local and state officials they must stop using humor and pop culture references on their road safety signs because they might ‘distract.’ That’s the point. You get people to pay attention. Also you brighten up their day. I sincerely despise people who issue rules like this. How do we fight back?
I strongly agree with the highway officials here. These are highway signs meant to warn of traffic problems, altered commute times, or potential hazards. Most of the time they are blank or (at least my area) they give commute times to major landmarks. In either case, they are not 'surprising' and unlikely to distract drivers, but still provide value.
On the other hand, when they show a novel message (whether a specific hazard warning, road closure, or corny joke) people pay special attention to them. Anecdotally, I've found that novel messages that require interpretation slow down traffic.
Using the signs to display stupid safety messages dilutes their intended purpose, causes delays, and reduces safety by distracting drivers (directly opposing their message). Those messages were awful and I'm glad they're gone.
With reinvested dividends and rising price, it simply grew to become one of my bigger positions. I invested in a variety of industries and this is how it ended up. I did consciously increase my positions in NVDA, MSFT, TQQQ, and GOOG (Google) in light of recent AI advances though.
Biggest positions (in order):
NVDA (NVidia)
SPLX(3x S&P)
TQQQ(3x tech)
VT (total world shares)
XOM (Exxon Mobil)
MSFT (Microsoft)
AAPL (Apple)
I wasn't initially so heavy in NVDA, but graphics cards go brrr.
I'm the OP of that bigfoot discussion on r/ssc. My views haven't substantially changed on that subject.
I agree with the great-grandparent that aliens being real is an enormously bigger change from the standard worldview than bigfoot being real.
I give < 10% likelihood to these UAPs being genuine aliens as stereotypically imagined, and < 50% likelihood of being some significant scientific update (e.g. weather phenomenon, spoofing technology).
However, assuming actual aliens in spaceships were here and trying halfheartedly to hide from us, I would expect the photo and video evidence to be about as crap as it is. So I agree with the conclusion of this OP, but disagree with the rationale.
Edit 19-JUN-2023: Upon reflection, I think assigning <10% likelihood is overconfident of me. I realized this when I read the recent post asking for UAP bets https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/t5W87hQF5gKyTofQB/ufo-betting-put-up-or-shut-up and thought about the real reasons why I wouldn't take the bet.
It's discussed in the Reddit comments, if you want more details, but briefly: A rare species with a long life might leave on the order of ~100 dead a year. If each corpse has, say 1e-5 chance (low but still plausible number) of being found by a person, then it could take a while.
I don't know of any claim that they would take care of their dead, but I don't see that as implausible.
If they exist, then they would have crossed the Bering land bridge at the same time as humans. They would never have lived anywhere without a human presence. And yes, similar sightings are known from across Asia also.
I wouldn't say I know it to be true, but read and reviewed books by experts (anthropologists, special effects experts, pro and con) and ended up concluding that bigfoot probably exists (~75%).
I wrote up my rationale in r/slatestarcodex a year or so ago:
Some more thoughts pertaining to limits of detection:
The Milky Way weighs 5.8e11 times M*, which itself is 2e30kg. Total mass of the galaxy = 1.2e42kg.
If all that mass were converted to energy with perfect efficiency, say via black hole evaporation, or annihilation with antimatter, then that's a total of 1.0e59 joules.
That many joules over 5 billion years (1.5e17 s) is a power of 7e41 watts. At a radius of 7 billion light years (6.6e25m), that's an energy flux of 1.3e-11 W/(m*m).
The sun puts out about 1400 W/(m*m)at our distance. So the sun would be about 1e14 times brighter than this distant galaxy trying to get our attention. Move the sun 1e7 x farther away to about 158 light years to match this brightness, and you get a ~8.5 magnitude star, never visible without aid. (Note: If using 1000x as much energy it becomes a clearly visible star and among our top 20 or so.)
So, if a type III civilization were using the entire mass-energy of 1 galaxy with 100% efficiency and used this resource to signal continuously for 5 billion years, they would not be bright enough to see unaided. We would still probably notice the light as a third-rate star if it wasn't blocked by dust.
How could they make it unusual enough to be noticed as a signal? Perhaps the signal has a complete blackbody spectrum, but they surround the galaxy with an unusual spectral absorption signature. Example: Surrounding the galaxy they could have concentric clouds of He, Li, B, N, Na, Al, etc. The elements with a prime atomic number.
That's unusual enough to draw attention. Maybe they could even encode a message in the degree of absorption.
I may be misunderstanding: Are you suggesting a targeted beam to the habitable zone of every star they can see?
If so, I don't see how that could work, considering that most stars visible at time of transmission would be dead by the time the transmission reaches them. Also the fact that they have orthogonal velocity that would be difficult or impossible to measure and account for.
My apologies if I have misunderstood.
I expect we don't notice most of them. We may notice a lot more the next few decades though. Some would still probably be hidden behind dust.
This example discusses how a type III civilization could signal its existence to a technological civilization halfway across the visible universe (~7 billion light years) over a time span of 5 billion years. Constraints: It should use a relatively small percent of its available resources, and the methods should not rely on unproven physics.
In the nearest 100 star systems (which include ~150 stars), there are 8 white dwarfs (5% of the stars). There is a distribution of masses, but most white dwarfs are between 0.5 and 0.7 (average ~ 0.6) times the mass of the sun (M*). A white dwarf cannot be more than ~1.44 M* because the self gravity becomes too strong to be supported by electron degeneracy pressure.
Type 1A supernovae occur when a white dwarf reaches ~1.44 M* via accretion from a companion star that is expanding. The white dwarf collapses, a large percent of the mass undergoes fusion, and it releases 1e44 to 2e44 joules of energy. Type 1A supernovae have a characteristic brightness profile and spectrum, and are readily identified. They occur naturally at a rate of approximately 1-2 per century (1-2 per ~3e9 seconds) in the Milky Way. They have been detected from as far away as 10 billion light years.
The Milky Way contains 1e11 to 4e11 stars. Therefore, there are up to 2e10 white dwarfs in the Milky Way.
An advanced civilization that wants to send an omnidirectional signal could intentionally induce type 1A supernovae by coalescing white dwarfs or crashing other stars into them. If using only white dwarfs (5% of the stars in the galaxy, maybe ~2-3% of its mass), then 1.44/0.6 = 2.4 average white dwarfs per supernova explosion would be required. This would allow 2e10 / 2.4 = 8e9 type 1A supernovae total in the galaxy.
This could be done by calculated, relatively small shifts in velocity that cause interstellar collisions many years in the future. For example: Two stars are calculated to pass within a light year of each other (1e16 m) in 10 million years (3e14 s). A shift in velocity on the order of 1e16m/3e14s = 33 m/s will instead cause a collision. Acting over 3e13 s (1 million years), this would require a constant acceleration of ~1e-12 m/(s^2). This could be accomplished by light pressure with mirror satellites or other low acceleration means that are a small fraction of a star system's mass. In this example it would require ~10 million years to get signalling started, but that is 0.2% of the timescale under discussion (5 billion years).
If the signal needs to be maintained for 5 billion years (1.5e17 seconds), then the civilization could on average initiate a type 1A supernova every 1.5e17 / 8e9 = 1.9e7 seconds = 217 days, which would be ~50-100x the natural rate. If visible to us, we would notice a galaxy with so many supernovae.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf
http://www.astro.gsu.edu/RECONS/TOP100.posted.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
I've been thinking about writing a step by step guide like this for weight maintenance for a few weeks.
Weight maintenance requires long-term adherence. This plan is tailored for practicality and ease of compliance. Notice that each step has concrete goals that you either comply with or not, which makes it easy to assess whether you are on track. The steps are ordered for [efficacy/difficulty].
0) Buy:
- body scale
- food scale (if you get to step 4)
- 8 food containers that can hold ~ 250mL or ~ 1 cup (if you get to step 4)
For the scales, have easy to replace batteries (i.e. AA, AAA, not lithium coins that you never can find at the store).
Start at step 1. Maintain a step for 2 weeks and assess if you're losing weight or maintaining an acceptable weight. If yes, then stay on that step. If not, keep doing what you are doing, and also add the next step. Once you reach your target weight, you can assess for two weeks and pull back one step at a time every 2 weeks. Follow this as written for best results, however, for ease of compliance:
- You may skip any 1 step except #1
- You may also switch a step up or down by 1 spot except #1
- Step #6 is required for subsequent steps.
1) Weigh yourself every morning.
2) Stop drinking anything containing sugar (including juice) or alcohol.
3) Include 4 or more eggs with breakfast (280 cal), however you want to prepare them. If you really dislike eggs, 2 scoops of whey protein (~240 cal) can be substituted.
4) Any time you are going to eat (any meal, any snacks, a single cookie, anything), you have to eat one of the following first if it's been more than 1 hour since you have:
Fruits
- 100 g fresh apple (52 cal)
- 100 g fresh strawberries (33 cal)
- 100 g fresh cherries (63 cal)
- 100 g fresh peach (40 cal)
- 100 g fresh pear (57 cal)
- 100 g fresh blackberries (43 cal)
- 100 g fresh raspberry (53 cal)
- 100 g fresh blueberry (57 cal)
Vegetables
- 100 g fresh baby carrots (41 cal)
- 100 g fresh cucumber (16 cal)
- 100 g fresh celery (16 cal)
- 100 g fresh or steamed spinach (23 cal)
- 100 g fresh or steamed broccoli (34 cal)
These are selected for palatability, cost, ease of use (easy to prepare, no cooking = less excuses). Prepare 100 g containers of the above each night for the next day. Balance fruit and vegetable in equal amounts.
5) Weight training:
- Learn to deadlift with proper form (Youtube videos are probably enough), deadlift 5 sets of 5 reps 1 day per week. Add 5 lbs any time you successfully finish 5x5. A hex bar plus plates don't take up too much room so this can be done at home if you have a ground floor and space available.
- Do push-ups of the best quality you can for 5 sets of 10 once a week. Improve the quality as you get stronger.
6) Count calories using the food scale and published nutritional information on packages / restaurants. After doing this a while, you may be able estimate (be careful though).
7) Limit daily calories to 15.0x your bodyweight in lbs.
8) Limit daily calories to 12.5x your bodyweight in lbs.
9) Limit daily calories to 10x your bodyweight in lbs.
10) Still not working? Check your math. Are you really counting everything? Are you weighing it? Are your units correct (grams / kg / lb / serving sizes)?
Created an account, because finally, something I can speak about from firsthand knowledge!
For a quantitative person it's helpful to check your weight on a regular schedule. For me it's every morning after waking up, before consuming anything (water, food). It's the most consistent time. This gives a reward for your work immediately, especially because the first week or two you may lose water weight as glycogen stores deplete (each 1 gram of glycogen lost also gives up 4 grams of water, you may lose ~1lb of glycogen). Sure it's just water loss, but you look better, and fit into your pants better, and it's encouraging.
The part where diets fail is in maintaining the weight loss. This is where weighing yourself regularly becomes even more important: Have a target weight that you actually can hit and strive to maintain without excessive willpower (say 170). Once you're below 170 you can eat more freely within reason. But always have an "action weight" (say 175) where if you go above, you start watching what you eat more carefully until you're below 170 again.
It's not "weight loss" it's weight maintenance.