If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "
Maybe you're just not rational enough to be shown that content? I see like 10 posts there.
MIRI has invented a proprietary algorithm that uses the third derivative of your mouse cursor position and click speed to predict your calibration curve, IQ and whether you would one-box on Newcomb's problem with a correlation of 95%. LW mods have recently combined those into an overall rationality quotient which the site uses to decide what level of secret rationality knowledge you are permitted to see.
Maybe you should do some debiasing, practice being well-calibrated, read the sequences and try again later?
EDIT: Some people seem to be missing that this is intended as humor ............
I see like 10 posts there.
Perhaps you are looking at the "RECENT POSTS" section rather than the section I mentioned?
Maybe you should do some debiasing, practice being well-calibrated, read the sequences and try again later?
I'll work on this.
Maybe you could work on reading?
My "RECENT ON RATIONALITY BLOGS" section on the right sidebar is blank.
If this isn't just me, and remains this way for long, I predict LW traffic will drop markedly as I primarily use LW habitually as a way to access SSC, and I'd bet my experience is not unique in this way.
It looks that way to me as well, and I don't think that should be the case. I'll investigate what's up.
Flinter has been banned after a private warning. I'm deleting the comment thread that led to the ban because it's an inordinate number of comments cluttering up a welcome thread.
Users are reminded that responding to extremely low-quality users creates more extremely low quality comments, and extended attempts to elicit positive communication almost never work. Give up after a third comment, and probably by your second.
From Flinter's comment:
The mod insulted me, and Nash.
While I respect your decision as a moderator to ban Flinter, insulting Nash is a horrible thing to do and you should be ashamed of yourself!
/ just kidding
Also, someone needs to quickly make a screenshot of the deleted comment threads, and post them as new LW controversy on RationalWiki, so that people all around the world are properly warned that LW is pseudoscientific and disrespects Nash!
/ still kidding, but if someone really does it, I want to have a public record that I had this idea first
If you think in terms of QALYs, that could be one reason to prefer interventions targeted at children. Your average child has more life to live than your average adult, so if you permanently improve their quality of life from 0.8 QALYs per year to 0.95 QALYs per year, that would result in a larger QALY change than the same intervention on the adult.
This argument has numerous flaws. One which comes to mind immediately are that many interventions are not so long lasting, so both adults and children would presumably gain the same. It also is tied to particular forms of utilitarianism one might not subscribe to.
Is there a simple coding trick to allow this blockchain micropayment scheme into Reddit based sites ?
This seems like a interesting way to get folks to write deeper and more thoughtful articles, by motivating them with some solid reward. And if something does go viral, it can allow some monetization without resorting to ad-based sites....
BTW, there was a link to simple markdown on Github in there
I wanted to make a discussion post about this but apparently I need 2 karma points and this forum is too ignorant to give them out. I'll post here and I guess probably be done with this place since its not even possible for me to attempt to engage in meaningful discussion. I'd also like to make the conjecture that this place cannot be based on rationality with the rule sets that are in place for joining-and I don't understand why that isn't obvious.
Anyways, here is what would have been my article for discussion:
"I am not perfectly sure how this site has worked (although I skimmed the "tutorials") and I am notorious for not understanding systems as easily and quickly as the general public might. At the same time I suspect a place like this is for me, for what I can offer but also for what I can receive (ie I intend on (fully) traversing the various canons).
I also value compression and time in this sense, and so I think I can propose a subject that might serve as an "ideal introduction" (I have an accurate meaning for this phrase I won't introduce atm).
I've read a lot of posts/blogs/papers that are arguments which are founded on a certain difficulties, where the observation and admission of this difficulty leads the author and the reader (and perhaps the originator of the problem/solution outlines) to defer to some form of a (relative to what will follow) long winded solution.
I would like to suggest, as a blanket observation and proposal, that most of these difficult problems described, especially on a site like this, are easily solvable with the introduction of an objective and ultra-stable metric for valuation.
I think maybe at first this will seem like an empty proposal. I think then, and also, some will see it as devilry (which I doubt anyone here thinks exists). And I think I will be accused of many of the fallacies and pitfalls that have already been previously warned about in the canons.
That latter point I think might suggest that I might learn well and fast from this post as interested and helpful people can point me to specific articles and I WILL read them with sincere intent to understand them (so far they are very well written in the sense that I feel I understand them because they are simple enough) and I will ask questions.
But I also think ultimately it will be shown that my proposal and my understanding of it doesn't really fall to any of these traps, and as I learn the canonical arguments I will be able to show how my proposal properly addresses them."
I wanted to make a discussion post about this but apparently I need 2 karma points and this forum is too ignorant to give them out
People have come here and said: "Hey, I've something interesting to say regarding X, and I need a small amount of karma to post it. Can I have some?" and have been given plenty.
A little reflection and a moderate amount of politeness can go a long way.
Another math problem:
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/and-yet-another-geometry-problem/
OK, I had dropped this for a while, but here are my thoughts. I haven't scrubbed everything that could be seen through rot13 because it became excessively unreadable
For Part 1: gur enqvhf bs gur pragre fcurer vf gur qvfgnapr orgjrra bar bs gur qvnzrgre-1/2 fcurerf naq gur pragre.
Gur qvfgnapr sebz gur pragre bs gur fvqr-fcurer gb gur pragre bs gur birenyy phor vf fdeg(A)/4. Fhogenpg bss n dhnegre sbe gur enqvhf bs gur fcurer, naq jr unir gur enqvhf bs gur pragre fcurer: (fdeg(A)-1)/4. Guvf jvyy xvff gur bhgfvqr bs gur fvqr-1 ulcrephor jura gung'f rdhny gb n unys, juvpu unccraf ng avar qvzrafvbaf. Zber guna gung naq vg jvyy rkgraq bhgfvqr.
Part 2: I admit that I didn't have the volume of high-dimensional spheres memorized, but it's up on wikipedia, and from there it's just a matter of graphing and seeing where the curve crosses 1, taking into account the radius formula derived above.. I haven't done it, but will eventually.
Part 3 looks harder and I'll look at it later.