Thanks for the info. I didn't know they were anti-vaxxers.
Can you be more specific?
No one wants to be in the control group.
Rather than spending time reading about autism you can probably better help this child by playing with him and doing stuff for his parents so they have more time to play with him, although ignore this advice if you enjoy reading about autism and so your doing so isn't a cost.
This is very good advice.
UPDATED: It has been pointed out that Autism Speaks still funds research looking for the supposed link to vaccines! People have resigned over this. Do not give your money to this organization.
Some books on autism:
There is also the 100 Day Kit from Autism Speaks.
The Autism Speaks 100 Day Kit and the Asperger Syndrome and High Functioning Autism Tool Kit were created specifically for newly diagnosed families to make the best possible use of the 100 da
Can you elaborate on your reason for choosing CI? Was it driven by reasons other than cost?
The websites for both are poorly designed and the only thing I could figure out was that maybe under some circumstances CI was cheaper. Not being able to distinguish between relevant features, and feeling it fairly urgent that I stop dithering and start signing up, I blatantly substituted Eliezer's judgment for my own and went with the one he picked.
Are you planning to provide training for people who are already running meetups?
It levels the playing field for those who use non-standard layouts.
For anyone who has ever argued over mechanical-switch and buckling-spring keyboards, made the hard choice between vi and Emacs, or manually reassigned a capslock key to control: this is for you.
Wouldn't it be easier to implement it as web application? Then you only need one code base and a browser and it works on all those platforms. Distribution is easy. You just email a URL. Updates would be local and wouldn't need to be distributed at all.
maxmore, since you're here, I have a question:
How much life insurance do I need?
The cost for whole body is $200,000. So do I need $200,000 or do I need what it costs at time of death? Historical data says the cost doubles every 20 years.
CharlesR: First of all, let me say that I have sufficient funding for whole body, yet I have chosen the neuro option. I find it difficult to fathom why anyone would want to bring along a broken-down old body which is going to have to be replaced anyway. We can store ten neuro patients for the cost of one whole body patient (which means that we are probably underpricing WBs currently). A neuro arrangement with Alcor currently costs $80,000. Although WB prices may have to rise before long, I've heard no suggestion that neuro rates need to rise anytime soon.
I think when you have a question that fits the first three criteria, it always devolves into mindkilling. (Operating systems are a good example.)
The only time this doesn't happen is when the question is not popular/important. If you want to find an example, you're going to have to let go of either #2 or #5.
Software Engineering for Software as a Service opened today. If anyone else is taking and wants to form a study group, let me know.
The Center for the Advancement of Human Reason
Here is my general heuristic:
Whenever you have a question, find out what the consensus view is. Then see what the contrarians are saying. Then see what the consensus people are saying about what the contrarians are saying. See how the contrarians respond. Then make up your own mind.
I solved vaccines and cryonics this way.
By "mainstream consensus view", I don't mean what your average man on the street thinks. I mean what the experts (usually the "right" scientists) are saying on a topic. So creationism isn't the consensus view. Evolution...
The Center for the Advancement of Human Thought
The Bayes Center for the Advancement of Human Reason
The Thomas Bayes Institute for Human Thought
Short: The Bayes Institute for Human Thought
Shorter: The Bayes Institute
The question came up at the West LA LW Meetup. Only two people knew what it meant.
I once read a book on characterization. I forget the exact quote, but it went something like, "If you want to make your villian more believable, make him more intelligent."
I thought my brain had misfired. But apparently, for the average reader it works.
I think the hardest step is deciding you just want to know what's true.
When I search for keyword: rationality, I get HPMoR for #2, yudkowsky.net for #5, and What Do We Mean By "Rationality"? for #7. Not sure how much my search history is affecting this.
Is rationality a common enough word that people would naturally jump to it when trying to figure out how to think better? I'm not sure how often I used it before Less Wrong, but I know that it is substantially more commonplace after reading the sequences.
Quantum mechanics can be described by a set of postulates. (Sometimes five, sometimes four. It depends how you write them.)
In the "standard" Interpretation, one of these postulates invokes something called "state collapse".
MWI can be described by the same set of postulates without doing that.
When you have two theories that describe the same data, the simpler one is usually the right one.
I suppose if you are the sort of person who has a lot of "waste".
From Scope Insensitivity:
Once upon a time, three groups of subjects were asked how much they would pay to save 2000 / 20000 / 200000 migrating birds from drowning in uncovered oil ponds. The groups respectively answered $80, $78, and $88 . This is scope insensitivity or scope neglect: the number of birds saved - the scope of the altruistic action - had little effect on willingness to pay.
Now I haven't read the paper, but this implies there is only one charity doing the asking. First they ask how much you would give to save 2000 birds? You say, &quo...
I was describing how I would respond in that situation. The amount I would give to charity XYZ is completely determined by my income. I need you to explain to me why this is wrong.
If I budgeted $100 for charity work and I decided saving birds was the best use of my money then I would just give the whole hundred. If I later hear more birds need saving, I will feel bad. But I won't give more.
Of course, I've read it. My problem isn't with scope insensitivity. Just this example.
RE: The Crazy Robot's Rebellion
We wouldn’t pay much more to save 200,000 birds than we would to save 2,000 birds. Our willingness to pay does not scale with the size of potential impact. Instead of making decisions with first-grade math, we imagine a single drowning bird and then give money based on the strength of our emotional response to that imagined scenario. (Scope insensitivity, affect heuristic.)
People's willingness to pay depends mostly on their income. I don't understand why this is crazy.
UPDATED: Having read Nectanebo's reply, I am revising ...
Except that the question specified "God" as an ontologically basic mental entity.
So they believe that God created the universe, but has ceased to exist since.
We have 82 Nietzscheans.
You should clarify in the antiagathics question that the person reaches the age of 1000 without the help of cryonics.
How is this to be interpreted? With or without the aid of cryonics?