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.

In college I was still reading out loud. Research papers have a voice. Mathematical equations especially. They take longer to say out loud than to read in your head, but you can never be sure what’s on the page if you don’t.

Maybe that description was too minimal to help anyone recreate the effect. What you do is you pretend the roman alphabet is a foreign alphabet. E.g. Kanji. Whenever you write or read, trace every stroke of the letter like you are illuminating an ancient manuscript. Channel your inner Sumi-E brush artist. Imagine yourself a true artisan of calligraphy. It’s a bit of a semi-meditative process of noticing every single stroke of every single letter. Yes, this is excruciatingly slow at first. Yes, it will be only kind of slow eventually. But, even better, you can probably still drop this technique at will and then just switch back and forth before high and low error modes of processing languages. Also, you are likely to lower your error rate in fast mode over time cause mental skills are porous. Or maybe magic? Anyway, it does seem to cross-over a bit.
 

This is totally true. I am a professional mathematician, and I also have a strong "mental voice". Whenever I read mathematical texts/research papers with equations inline, I totally read the equations aloud in my head. It makes me wonder to what extent being dyslexic for English (or other written natural languages) fails to co-occur with being dyslexic for math-tongue (as distinct from dyscalculia, with AIUI has to do mostly with disability at mental calculation and mental manipulation of quantitative facts).

Also, I can read Korean and have had the distinct sensation of it being harder to make myself care about the differences between the characters, very early on; similarly, when practicing Chinese characters in class, I've seen a lot of classmates have a very hard time because they have to suddenly resort to having to treat the characters like they're pictures without even having the mental technology of how to do that correctly, so I wonder how much of dyslexia transfers cross-linguistically! Are there people who can read Cyrillic and Greek, but not Latin script or Hebrew? Who knows!

I'm neither of these users, but for temporarily secret reasons I care a lot about having the Geometric Rationality and Maximal Lottery-Lottery sequences be slightly higher-quality. Warning: these are AI-generated, if that's a problem. It's that, an abstract pattern, or programmer art from me.

Two options for Maximal Lottery-Lotteries:

Two options for Geometric Rationality:

Firstly, your utility is not logarithmic in dollars. Utilities are bounded.

Ehn, the universe is finite and there's no way we can get anywhere near a dollar per atom of value out of the universe. There's well less than ${10}^{100}$ particles in the universe and $\ln \left({10}^{100}\right)\sim 230$, so if you were wrong about utility not being O(log(money)) because it has to be bounded, how could you ever tell even in principle? (That said I do think you're right, but that's because economium is likely as edible as dollar bills are.)

If that's the case, that seems like a huge hole in your argument/concern. But from statistics taken for the US, it looks like AAPIs get oropharynx cancers at a significantly lower rate than both non-Hispanic Whites and general population both, despite a possibly-higher rate of smoking (for cultural reasons) and a definitely-much-higher rate of defective ALDH polymorphisms.

To make no choice is to make a choice, and to take no action is to take an action. I'd ask the flip side of Lao Mein here - how confident are you, exactly, that your current state of affairs is all that great in an absolute sense, and what are you willing to risk a small chance of in exchange for clear benefits now and in future?

Nuke might miss the moon

• and fall back to earth, where it would detonate, because of the planned design which would explode upon impact
  • in the USSR
  • in the non-USSR (causing international incident)
• and circle sadly around the sun forever

• and circle gleefully about the Earth-Moon Langrange points, wandering around the Earth's Hill sphere, causing consternation for years

I am an Asian ~30yo man (ethnically Korean, specifically) who has suffered from bad cavities all his life and who also suffers from Asian glow to the point of it being uncomfortable to drink; I am also planning to get the Lumina treatment. I do not think that the amount of alcohol produced is particularly relevant; I drink occasionally and eat a ton of fruit, and thus I think that my marginal risk is basically negligible.

I don't smoke, and to the best of my knowledge, I have no particular family history of cancer, let alone oral/esophageal cancer, despite high rates of smoking in my family history.

As such, I'm pretty sure that the expected value calculation is overdetermined towards "get the Lumina", given how unpleasant caries and carie treatment are for me and the (weak but maybe real?) connection between caries and Alzheimer's. Given a choice of damnations, I think I'd prefer oral cancer to Alzheimer's even with ~identical proportional changes in likelihood; given how dubious I am on the marginal risk of oral cancers to start with, I'm only that much more set on fixing my oral microbiome.

If anyone wants me to take measurements or keep data or logs of observations, please let me know.

Adam:

You could argue a similar thing about lawyers, that prosecutors and defense lawyers speak the same jargon and have more of a repeated game going than citizens they represent. And yet we have a system that mostly works.

Yud:

Lawyers combined cannot casually exterminate nonlawyers.

Adam:
 ...

Uh... what? If we stretch the definition of "lawyer" a bit to mean "anyone who carries out, enforces, or whose livelihood primarily depends on the law" - that is, we include government agents, cops, soldiers, and so on... yes they absolutely totally can? (In the same sense that anyone can drench their own house with gasoline and burn it down.) But maybe that's only a weird tangent - although I'd argue that some of the power dynamics that fall out of that are likely disquietingly similar.