Second most? What's the first? Linearization of a Newtonian V(r) about the earth's surface?

That makes sense.

Did you know they were going to close today? Were you suprised by the news?

This seems to have come out of nowhere. Was anyone aware of this ahead of time? Why didn't anyone try sharing the news to get prestigious academics, institutions and others to loudly say this is a terrible idea? Or get Kelsey Piper or someone to write a big news article about this? 

Huh, that looks like it had a persistent effect too. Looks to me like you're a lot more productive when you work on your own stuff, now.

So what happened around Feb 25? It sure looks like something about your usage of Youtube and Twitter changed. Just to make sure I plotted an XMR chart, and yep, it sure looks like there's been a change in the process. (The a couple points lie outside the limits, and there are 3/4 consecutive points closer to the limits than the mean. Both signify exception variation, suggesting you did something different. The yellow line is just a divider showing the datapoint corresponding to the 18th Feb.) 
.

Huh, I didn't know this was equivalent to the born rule. It does feel pretty natural, do you have a reference to the proof?

Wasn't this the assumption originally used by Everret to recover Born statistics in his paper on MWI?

FWIW last I heard, nobody has constructed a pilot-wave theory that agrees with quantum field theory (QFT) in general and the standard model of particle physics in particular. The tricky part is that in QFT there’s observable interference between states that have different numbers of particles in them, e.g. a virtual electron can appear then disappear in one branch but not appear at all in another, and those branches have easily-observable interference in collision cross-sections etc. That messes with the pilot-wave formalism, I think. 

Based off the abstracts of these papers:

QFT as pilot-wave theory of particle creation and destruction,

Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory,

Relativistically invariant extension of the de Broglie-Bohm theory of quantum mechanics,

Making nonlocal reality compatible with relativity,

Time in relativistic and non relativistic quantum mechanics,
and the Wikipedia page on de Broglie Bohm's section on QFT, it seems like this claim is wrong. I haven't read these papers yet, but someone I was talking to said Bohmian QFT is even more unnecessarily complicated than Bohmian QM.

I don't know if anyone has re-constructed the Standard Model in this framework as of yet.
EDIT: Changed "standard Bohmian QFT" -> "Bohmian QM"

I saw an interesting thread about how to strategically choose a problem & plan to make progress on it. It was motivated by the idea that you don't get taught how to choose good problems to work on in academia, so the author's wrote a paper on just that. This sorta reminded me of your project to teach people how to  10x their OODA looping, so I wanted to bring it to your attention @Raemon. 

One way this essay could be even better is if you gave a couple of reframings for one of the questions you mention, and why they do/don't work. 

QFT is relativistic quantum mechanics with fields i.e. a continuous limit of a lattice of harmonic oscillators, which you may have encountered in solid state theory. It is the framework for the standard model, our most rigorously tested theory by far. An interpretation of quantum mechanics that can't generalize to QFT is pretty much dead in the water. It would be like having an interpretation of physics that works for classical mechanics but can't generalize to special or general relativity.

(Edited to change "more rigorously" -> "most rigorously".)