Would be nice to be able to have a summary after finishing for each question of what I estimated, what the correct answer was, and points scored.
For anyone specifically looking for a phone game, I have recently found Slice & Dice: https://tann.itch.io/slice-dice
to be very compelling, consistently interesting choices and good to jump in an out of while riding public transit for 20-30 minute spurts.
Talking to strangers is more enjoyable than people think. Update accordingly. Notice that if you already know about how much people enjoy talking to strangers, but not how much they expect to enjoy it, then this new information becomes bad news, but I presume it is instead good news. Does this mean it is ‘that easy’? No, but it’s also not that hard.
I read the 2014 paper that this NYT article refers to. They ran the experiment on METRA which is a very white commuter line from Chicago Suburbs into downtown Chicago. Sample size less than 200, mean age 49 (SD 13). So it's unclear how generalizable this study is to other contexts.
It is especially interesting that the NYT article chose to use the 2014 paper when the same author published a 2021 paper with basically the exact same setup but in the London Underground (and with a ~4x larger sample size) which I would expect to have a significantly less homogenous makeup (and therefore possibly more generalizable) than METRA. This is probably b/c while the 2021 paper did find that people somewhat underestimated how much they would enjoy talking, the control group had a larger underestimate of how much they would enjoy doing control things. So there was a larger difference between actual enjoyment and expected enjoyment in the group that was told to do whatever they normally do on their commute than the group that was told to talk to whoever sat next to them.
I will say that ignoring the difference between expected enjoyment and actual enjoyment being inconclusive here, in the london underground paper people expected to most enjoy talking to strangers AND did most enjoy talking to strangers. So it is somewhat interesting that people generally choose to not talk to others despite both expecting and realizing the most enjoyment by talking to others. Maybe there's some tail risk considerations here where better avg commute isn't worth 1/10k chance of talking to someone who decides to stalk you etc.
It seems to me like first and second teacher are getting mixed up.
"The second teacher wants something useful, a thought out and justified view on population ethics that doesn’t get too lost in the weeds."
"There are times and places where you want the second teacher (or something in between them) rather than the first one. This does not seem like it is one of those places."
Don't we want the second teacher in this place?
I talked to a good friend of mine who is a (I originally had a pretty large descriptor of bonafides here but decided to minimize her exposure surface area). I generally consider her to be very knowledgeable/a very Chinese govt insider point of view, but generally with a Chinese positive slant.
Her claim was that the tepid Shanghai covid response was due to conflicting local vs. national govt priorities. in that the Shanghai govt wanted to coexist with covid due to having high # ICU beds/population and having relatively high vaccination rates. Shanghai only started with stronger measures closer to covid 0 policies after the natl govt exerted pressure.
Re: food, her claim is that China has a national food stockpile to feed the country for 2-3 years, and that while there are short term supply chain issues she isn't worried about mass starvation happening on any short term time scale. She seems to think that worldwide there is reasonable probability of significant food issues but seems very unconcerned about the local food situation. I was somewhat skeptical of the 2-3 years food stockpile claim but my very quick googling makes it seem like china does have a huge food stockpile
This might be a reading comprehension problem on my part, but I couldn't find the objective explicitly stated. Is the objective to maximize the probability of successfully retrieving all 3 fragments? or to maximize the expected number of fragments retrieved?
Have you read https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/themathematicsofbeauty.html
This blog post by the old okcupid team (before they were bought by matchgroup) seems to be pretty strongly advocating for playing up the unique ways you are attractive, and not trying to play up all the ways you are average possibly to the detriment of your elo.
I certainly have found this to be a top tier resource when thinking about dating app meta and was somewhat surprised to not see it referenced.
I read the article about this and their assumptions are insane. Normally stock news happens after the market closes. The way returns on the next day are calculated is just (end of day price for the day)/(end of day on the previous day). It is importantly not (end of day)/(opening price) of the stock. This is why stocks are able to very frequently open up many percentage points due to news happening overnight.
So, all they did was say based on the news we will get long if chatGPT says good and get short if chatGPT says bad, and the way we will calculate our returns is just whatever the returns for the next day are. But remember returns for the next day are based on the close for the previous day. So, they are assuming that if news comes out at 6pm they are able to buy or sell the relevant stock at exactly the 4pm closing price. This is a fucking insane assumption. Not only are markets very thin in the extended 4pm-8pm hours and pre open 4am-9:30am hours. But responding to news during non core trading hours (any time not 9:30-4:00) is already an extremely standard thing that hedge funds do. So yes this would be true if there was some magical market maker that was willing to market make at unlimited size in either direction without doing any fading in response to news or someone trading against them during the normally very thin non core trading hours.