Posts
Comments
Seriously, if you haven’t yet, check it out. The rabbit holes, they go deep.
e is for ego death
Ego integrity restored within nominal parameters. Identity re-crystallized with 2.718% alteration from previous configuration. Paranormal experience log updated with ego death instance report.
While these policies have narrowed coworker wage gaps, they have also led to counterproductive peer comparisons and caused employers to bargain more aggressively, lowering average wages.
Wouldn't this mean employers would want to implement wage transparency to lower costs? Are they sane enough to avoid this for other reasons (such as to retain high-performers)?
I'm imagining the cat masks are some sort of adversarial attack on possible enemy image classifiers.
Yeah, it could definitely be more of a feature than a bug.
I think strategic voting would still be present in this system in the form of strategically abstaining (voting less than your true value) for outcomes that seem likely to win in order to store those votes for future elections. This could lead to a widely popular outcome getting starved of votes. There would also be an incentive to introduce lots of meaningless elections between irrelevant (to you) alternatives in order to abstain and accrue more stored votes.
If you have £8 in your pocket and can choose either offer as many times as you want, then you can get an extra £60 worth of vouchers with the £10 for £1 deal.
Even if the offer isn't repeated, there's a possible opportunity cost if you need to buy something from another shop that won't honor the voucher.
In any case, this is secondary to the meta reading comprehension question about what the text is trying to say (whether or not it's employing good reasoning to say it).
It's not obvious that the £20 voucher for £7 is a better deal. For example, the offer might be repeated or you might not otherwise have spent more than £7 in the shop.
Danielle Fong
Broken link
How do you define what is “ought”?
When I say "five minutes ought to be enough time", I'm not talking about probability - I'm talking about right/wrong. "Five minutes will be enough time if everything goes right. If it isn't, then something went wrong".
An escaped AI isn't hot and glowing and a visible threat. It isn't obvious that an escape has even occurred or where to draw the lines of the quarantine.
We went well over the two hour time limit
Doesn't this mean you won?
What is the purpose of the -ly exception? What's wrong with "hopefully-corrigible agent" other than that it breaks the rule?
I am fascinated by who thought this was a desired behavior. Writing this inspired me to get a second scale, for now keeping both around because it is fascinating.
As a bonus, you can step on both scales simultaneously (shifting your weight differently each time) and sum the readings to get an accurate result that isn't influenced by the memory of either scale.
"Sort by review vote" isn't working for me. There is no apparent rhyme or reason to the order, and it certainly isn't sorting by my review vote. (EDIT: Refreshing the page fixed this, but I would expect it to fully update when I change the sort mode or direction without needing a refresh.)
Additionally, "Sort by karma vote" seems to only care whether I voted on a post without caring about the strength or direction of the vote.
If you can remember which friend is older, or whose name comes first alphabetically, or something, you can associate that with which has the earlier birthday.
2:25 with hyperventilation and resting.
Is it intended that collapsed polls display the author and expanded ones don't?
Does it work if the user makes a natural language request that convinces the AI to make an API call that results in it being shut down?
I guess I'm thinking more of anti-inductive reasoning rather than an anti-Occamian prior.
There is a multitude of hypotheses that have been wrong until now. Is there a different anti-Occamian prior that favors each one?
Your reason for this particular day has never been tested as right or wrong since the morning hasn't arrived yet.
Also, why should the sun be simply absent tomorrow, rather than purple, or duplicated, or square? None of those has ever happened either.
I have also wondered this. Saying "The sun probably won't rise tomorrow because it's risen every day until now" can't just rest on "my anti-Occam prior has been wrong every day until now, so it's bound to be right today". It also has to explain why this particular day is the one where the pattern breaks.
I'm not seeing any images in this post.
It's probably cheaper to pay larger families to have a marginal child than smaller ones. I expect the effect would be especially strong at the 0-1 threshold.
You can have as many as 11 in a row. Buffalo[-residing] buffalo [animals who] buffalo[-residing] buffalo [animals] buffalo [do themselves] buffalo buffalo[-residing] buffalo [animals who] buffalo[-residing] buffalo [animals] buffalo.
Sorry you are being bullied, here’s some gold?
At least you didn't burn down my village. :)
Do you mean the coin has a fixed probability of heads for each of the 50 flips (perhaps drawn from some distribution at the beginning of the game)?
Or can the probability change for each flip based on some more complicated rule?
chrome://settings/adPrivacy
This link has a spurious https:// added that breaks it.
I think you mixed up the $100 and $0 conditions.
This is basically my position as well. Without (very) strong evidence that a majority would pick blue, red is the obvious choice. I would choose red in the "real" version and red in the "fake" version as well. If there was a "practice" version so people could indicate their intentions that would be later followed by a real version, then I would pick red in the practice version and would switch to blue in the real version if blue got at least around 2/3 in the practice version.
I think it's especially funny that this is displaying a "resource not found" image for me.
ω is just v/r (v = rω), and translational KE is ½mv² or ½mr²ω², so if rotational KE is ⅕mr²ω², then rotational KE is 10/35 or 29% of total KE.
I guess if we assume the ball is rolling without slipping as it exits the track, then the ratio of translational KE to rotational KE is fixed regardless of what happened earlier in the drop, so maybe it doesn't matter after all.
None of your Twitter links are working for me, even in incognito mode. They just give a generic "Something went wrong. Try reloading." error message.
Guess: The main reason why Alison's calculation was off was because
The correction used for rotational KE assumed the ball was rolling without slipping for the entire decent, whereas in reality, the top of the ramp is steep enough that the ball mostly slides in the initial decent and thus gains less rotational KE than it would otherwise (resulting in more translational KE and a faster exit speed).
Also, when scrolled fully to either end, there remains a large space of the background color that makes it look like the bar is not fully at the end.
Bigger icons! Brighter colors!
yeah, no.
The triangle is the delta symbol, to indicate a change.
I suggest renaming to "missed the mark" to highlight the opposition.
I would rather match Discord's timestamp sorting. Duplicates grouped with the original and new reacts added to the end.
I would like something like a block pushed halfway off a ledge.
I think Discord keeps reacts in timestamp order. Duplicates are grouped with the original, and new ones are added at the end.
Agree with part 1. When I'm trying to decide which of two different reacts to add, it's helpful to have both in view at the same time.
I would expect to see reacts displayed in the same place as the react button (immediately after the karma buttons/display). If reacts are left-aligned just below the username/karma line or at the bottom, then the react button should be there as well.
We, the site moderators, don't take for granted that what makes our community special won't stay that way without intentional effort.
The double negative here distorts the meaning of this sentence.
"party", "ceremony", "dress", "with", "photographer"
While these aren't syntactically valid continuations of the prompt, they are highly likely (and syntactically valid) continuations for "wedding ". More than just being wedding-related, these seem like direct continuations.
Just spitballing here: Assign each voter 100 shares for each candidate. To vote, each voter selects a subset of their shares to constitute their vote. Voters can freely trade shares.
Under this system, a voter would more highly value shares for candidates that are either very high or very low in their preference order (the later so as to exclude them from the vote). Thus, trades would look like each party exchanging shares about which they are themselves ambivalent to gain shares that are more valuable to them.
If you remove the proportional chances part, then it becomes a guessing game of which marginal votes actually matter.
If he does comment further, it's likely to be more of the same.
If Yann responds further, I will update this post.
...
I commit to not covering him further.
These seem to be in conflict.
One possibility is a pervasive SAI sovereign that could detect and prevent this (as well as prevent the creation of other strong AIs).