We had a turnout of 10 by my count (not counting two younglings). Thanks to Psy-Kosh for starting this.
For reference: I was near the northeast corner of the table, next to Psy-Kosh. My real-life name is Aaron Brown.
Here's Doug Engelbart's mouse-tastic 1968 "Mother of All Demos" (and the Wikipedia entry).
Cool to meet you all :)
I think we need a venue in which it's easier to talk. As for how often, I don't know..
I don't know if it's cost effective, but the Ann Arbor-ites could try ZipCar.
I think you meant pm anyways,, next time mention and I'll set it later.
It's not a problem for me at least. It's a bit late for me to change it (Although if you want to show up at 1 or perhaps 1:30, I should still be there...)
But yeah, lemme know next time for what would be a better time.
I think I will be able to make it, also. Excellent!
So, I was the incentive guy.
Well, you probably are right that we're not really totally consistent, at least in our reasoning.
I was just noting that we as individuals kind of need to resolve those inconsistencies. Generally, when you notice an inconsistency in your preferences, you're able to either decide you prefer one to the other or say you don't know, at which point you (at least for the moment) assign them equal rank, right?
Further, I was noting that even if for some stuff you're not entirely clear on, there're cases where you definitely prefer one thing to the other all else being equal. (The case of not being equal is where you start computing the knock-on effects/separate consequences and modify the net value based on those modifiers...)
Then from there, one can construct utilities by looking at differences between how much stuff is valued. (Which basically can be done by going "if I'd be equally surprised if A or B occur, if I have no particular expectation one way or the other... And if I'm offered to either conditionally replace A with C... that is, if A would have occurred, instead C will occur) or to replace B with D, then whichever one I choose, I'd assign a higher difference to.(ie, utility(C) - utility(A) > utility(D) - utility(B) if you choose the first option, or if you're indifferent, you set those differences as equal.) From there you have an internal "currency" to use, and you can pretty much dutch book argument) your way up to Bayesian probability (and the rest of decision theory, I believe). (Well, okay, to actually make the Dutch Book argument work here, we have to focus more on your potential losses and gains rather than the opponents, and more "how much potential utility are you willing to sacrifice to gain some other amount of utility under some circumstances", but that's more just rephrasing and such)
Where: Udipi Restaurant, on Orchard Lake road, between 12 and 13 mile road (much closer to 13 mile)
When: Sunday, February 20, 12:30pm (This can be moved a bit later or such if that's better for anyone)
Unless anyone who would otherwise come except for the date/time being bad, that's what I'm going to go with.
If you plan on showing up, go ahead and comment here so I'll have an idea about that. (Although if you don't comment and you find that you do still want to show up, don't feel that your not having commented is a reason not to show up.)
EDIT: From the discussion thread, some people in Ann Arbor would come if they had a ride. So if anyone is coming from Ann Arbor and is willing to give a ride, please mention that. Thanks.