How many solutions are there that we overlook because they seem childish or "cringe"? Maybe that's just something I notice, since I notice myself avoiding "cringe" things too much. I think being averse to cringe is not entirely a bad thing, because it helps rule out solutions that probably wouldn't work.
Here's a link that seems to confirm what I wrote: https://chandra.harvard.edu/graphics/resources/handouts/lithos/bullet_lithos.pdf
I think what's happening is basically that the pink shows where the visible mass is, but the purple shows where the mass should be according to gravitational lensing. Dark matter should pass straight through, and that is what we see according to lensing, even though the pink lags behind because it can collide (since it's mostly the hot plasma).
At least, I think that's what's happening... I myself am really confused and am pretty unconfident in that explanation.
I'm also confused as to what modified gravity predicts, and how bullet clusters disprove it. I guess what we'd see is that modified gravity would alter the gravity around the visible mass, not just make it magically act like it just passed through. Ie, a lot about gravity would have to change for such a drastic difference between the mass as perceived through x-rays and the mass as perceived through gravitational lensing.
This reminds me of lukeprog's post on motivation (I can't seem to find it though...; this should suffice). Your model and TMT kind of describe the same thing: you have more willpower for things that are high value and high expectancy. And the impulsiveness factor is similar to how there are different "kinds" of evidence: eg you are more "impulsive" to play video games or not move, even though they aren't high value+expectation logically.
I see. Thanks.
What does he do specifically? It's very unclear just from reading the Amazon description. Or is it like an entire program. I'm skeptical: I have never heard of this anywhere else, so it seems like one of those $100-bill-on-the-subway-floor type things.
it needed me to also have an active project I was working on that I actually enjoyed. I think otherwise I would have found other ways to distract myself and eventually undermined it to the point that I gave up.
Same with me. Although it's still better than nothing: the usual distractions are more habit than actually fun, and I've found that I read more interesting things instead of just mindlessly browsing social media.
I like to use the add-on LeechBlockNG (I don't know if you can use it on mobile). You can use it to outright block sites, but also delay access to the site before you actually enter, and also put time limits. The delay is something I haven't seen other apps/add-ons use a similar feature, and it's kind of a deal-breaker, since it solves the problem of "instant gratification" that makes social media (etc.) addicting.
I really agree with this. I have been thinking that we should "default to privacy", because if we think we have to share it, we will change our thoughts because of the social anxieties/pressures. (It's similar to that experiment that demonstrated people make better decisions if they didn't have to come to a solution first (I just remember this from reading HP:MOR).) Only after we reach the answer, (socially) unbiased, then we can decide to share it.
I don't think privacy means dishonesty. I personally really dislike lying, and I think it's because acting with false information sort of takes away their free will, and more practically, this creates a lot of uncertainty.... (read more)
I want to be able to see the LessWrong posts that I've already read/visited, like in a list. I mainly just want to be able to re-save some ones that I really liked but deleted from my bookmarks.
I didn't vote on all the posts I read (it's kind of like a habit I had to build), so I can't do that (although, that would be nice too) (I guess that would be a related question).
This makes me think "tulpamancy-lite". Not that that's a bad thing - perhaps it's like a safer tulpamancy. Some thoughts:
... (read more)