Mathematician, alignment researcher, doctor. Reach out to me on Discord and tell me you found my profile on LW if you've got something interesting to say; you have my explicit permission to try to guess my Discord handle if so. You can't find my old abandoned LW account but it's from 2011 and has 280 karma.
Posts
Wiki Contributions
Comments
I gave a short and unpolished response privately.
Dang. I wasn't entirely sure whether you were firm on the definition of lottery-lottery dominance or if that was more speculative. I guess I wasn't clear that MLLs were specifically meant to be "majoritarianism but better"? Given that you meant for it to be, this post sure doesn't prove that they exist. You're absolutely right that you can cook up electorates where the majority-favored candidate isn't the Nash bargaining/Geometric MLL favored candidate.
The body uses up sodium and potassium as two major cations. You need them for neural firing to work, among many other things; it's the body's go-to for "I need a single-charge cation but sodium doesn't work for whatever reason". As such, you lose plenty in urine and sweat. Because modern table salt (i.e., neither rock salt nor better yet sea salt) contains basically no potassium, people can end up being slightly deficient because we do still get some from foods - lots of types of produce like tomatoes, root vegetables, and some fruits are rich in it, for instance.
To avoid confusion: this post and my reply to it were also on a past version of this post; that version lacked any investigation of dominance criterion desiderata for lottery-lotteries.
Yeah, I myself subvocalize absolutely everything and I am still horrified when I sometimes try any "fast" reading techniques - those drain all of the enjoyment our of reading for me, as if instead of characters in a story I would imagine them as p-zombies.
I speed-read fiction, too. When I do, though, I'll stop for a bit whenever something or someone new is being described, to give myself a moment to picture it in a way that my mind can bring up again as set dressing.
Anyway, my prediction is that non-dyslectics do not subvocalize - it's much too slow. You can't read faster than you speak in that case.
Maybe I'm just weird, but I totally do sometimes subvocalize, but incredibly quickly. Almost clipped or overlapping to an extent, in a way that can only really work inside your head? And that way it can go faster than you can physically speak. Why should your mental voice be limited by the limits of physical lips, tongue, and glottis, anyway?
2Excellent, thanks!
Your post makes me feel like I meaningfully contributed to the improvement of these sequences by merely asking a potentially dumb question in public, which is the internet at its very best.
IMO you did! Like I said in my comment, for reasons that are secret temporarily I care about those two sequences a lot, but I might not have thought to just ask whether they could be added to the library, nor did I know that the blocker was suitable imagery.
On the object level I agree. On the meta level, though, making the seemingly-dumb object-level move (~here specifically) of announcing that you think that all minds are the same in some specific way means that people will come out of the woodwork to correct you, which results in everyone getting better models about what minds are like.