Posts
Comments
This assumes speed limits were correctly calibrated at some point. I think the actual cost of road deaths (which are arguably the top single cause of QALY loss even at current historically low rates) is high enough that I suspect it was originally set way too high and is still unreasonably high given the costs.
I think this describes how Eliezer's grudge against academia has set back AI alignment (even the parts that aren't related to his organization, since his cultural influence has made this a wider norm).
Partly street design to reduce speeding, partly encouraging other mode shares over private cars (see e.g. here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/how-helsinki-and-oslo-cut-pedestrian-deaths-to-zero )
(Disclaimer: I'm ideological about disliking cars, which makes me less objective than I'd usually prefer to be on LW)
We haven’t solved traffic or auto accidents
Worth noting that this is a policy failure, not a technological one. Some places have solved this - e.g. Oslo has 0-1 car deaths a year - but American cities are unwilling or unable to make the infrastructure changes it takes. I think this is related to the lack of celebration issues - we celebrate change and progress less, and achieve less progress that would require change, because we value progress less than we used to.
I think I was at about the same place for most of it, but unfortunately I didn't write that one down and can't go back and check :/.
This mostly matches my experience. By far the most intense version of this I've had was the time I tried to play Chess and Go simultaneously (against two different people). I started sweating and shaking. This seems to suggest that not only is thinking a physical effort, you can push yourself much harder under some conditions than others (just like how deadlifts will physically exhaust you much faster than pushups, even if you push yourself to do pushups as hard as you think you can).
One of the functions/problems of funeral rituals is coordinating the direction support needs to go - people support people who were closer to the deceased/are having a harder time, and get support from people who are having less of a hard time.
I guess this means a funeral is a two-group event, at least along that axis - you have the group of people being comforted (family and close friends), and then the group of less-close acquaintances, who (aside from being there to deal with their own grief) are also there to comfort the first group (both by direct action, and by showing them the person they lost mattered to people).
I guess the implications of that are (a) sometimes (like with your friend) you need separate rituals, because you have multiple important first group/second group divisions. And (b), it's not only okay to be there if you didn't know the person that well, it's important (since you need the second group). And from the outside view, you should expect most funerals you go to to have you in the second group.
In terms of the ritual, I'm not sure what the implications are. Maybe it suggests that if you don't have a direct fit for the deceased's wishes, you should look for something representative of group 1 instead of the general attendance (though this raises the problem that identifying group 1 isn't easy - the roommate the person moved in with two months ago may be either a total stranger, or closer than their estranged family). It does suggest that the ritual needs to leave room for unidirectional comforting, but that seems easiest to do by leaving unstructured communication space.
I'm interested. I'm moving to the bay (work in MTV) in August. (I'm also interested in group houses and like kids, so if there's a shortage of grouphouse pro-kids people I totally have comparative advantage there).