Do we mean active LessWrong users? <10% would shock me, if you use a filter or weighting that solves the "probably there are a lot of people who look at LessWrong ever other than 'real' LessWrongers" aspect.

Maybe it's less than half though. There might be a large contingent that has only read like, HPMOR and the Sequences Highlights.

Point out that most peoples’ clothes don’t really manage to signal what they intended even when they’re trying, and someone will say something like “well, it’s largely about signalling to oneself, e.g. to build confidence, so it doesn’t matter if other people get the signal”. And, like… I roll to disbelieve?

I think having a good model of when vibe people get from clothing is important and I find it plausible that there is some rationalization going on with this... but also, the self-signaling thing does seem like a large enough aspect to be the most important part, to me, even if the other-signaling aspect isn't entirely unimportant.

I think part of this is probably that beauty is much less one-dimensional?

I agree Tessa's explanation isn't especially good, though it's maybe more "incomplete" than "bogus".

I don't think the minimax theorem comes anywhere close to implying the existence of some sort of true optimal strategy, though, which I think becomes clear if you consider two types of chess bots. Bot A plays the same move as (something like) LeelaPieceOdds—unless that move would be moving from a game theoretically won position to a draw or loss, or from a draw to a loss, in which case it, say, randomly selects from all the moves that don't do that, or ideally picks a move that humans are inclined to blunder against (maybe LeelaPieceOdds's second choice, or something.)

On the other hand, Bot B immediately resigns whenever the position is a game theoretic loss, and immediately offers a draw whenever the position is a game theoretic draw. If its opponent rejects the draw offer, Bot B prefers to stay in states with the fewest opportunities for its opponent to blunder.

While both are "inexploitable", Bot A beats humans every time, and Bot B draws them every time. (Unless chess is a game theoretic win for (WLOG) white, in which case Bot B wins as white but immediately resigns as black.) If you made Bot B a chess.com account, it very well might literally never break 1000 Elo.

So in pathological cases the non-transitivity can get pretty bad. The tops result sounds really neat but I haven't read it yet and don't know exactly how Bot B would fit into it—obviously "<1000 Elo" isn't really going to be a description of Bot B that captures how it fits into such a structure very well.

I swear I don't laugh about janus generally it's just that  the way you wrote that paragraph was really funny

You do get one guarantee, though: All the experiments are Bernoulli processes. In particular, the order of the trials is irrelevant.

I think those aren't quite equivalent statements? If I pick my favorite string of bits, and shuffle it by a random permutation, then the probability of each bit being 1 is equal, the order is totally irrelevant (it was chosen at random), but it's not Bernoulli because the trials aren't independent of each other (if you know what my favorite string of bits is, you can learn the final bit as soon as you've observed all the rest.)

I think my lease might not let me paint my room green? Then again, maybe it does, or maybe if I painted it back before leaving I could get away with it...

Inducing trance isn't superhuman!

You might think it's "p of doom" like how "f(x)" is "f of x", but actually I think people usually say just "p doom".

The most elite groups (like billionaires or jews)

This quote looks pretty bad, but...

The most elite groups (like billionaires or Jews) are often the ones it’s most socially acceptable to blame for problems, or even call for violence against.

Now, you could maybe still critique this quote, but it reads very differently than when you cut the sentence off immediately!