I'm curious about the thought process that led to this being asked in the "stupid questions" thread rather than the "very advanced theoretical speculation of future technology" thread. =P
As a more serious answer: Anything that would effectively give us a means to alter mass and/or the effects of gravity in some way (if there turns out to be a difference) would help a lot.
As ZankerH said, it leaves out the "required to make" part. Also, gjm's particular formulation of 2' makes a statement about comparisons between two given decisions, not a statement about the entire search space of possible decisions.
Thanks for making it way clearer than I did. And yes, I forgot the 1:1 edge case.
As for modifying, a minor edit or bug similar to this is always 60% formulation and specification, 10% code modification, and 30% testing and making sure you're not breaking half the project. It sounds like you've already done around 75% of the work.
(deployment not included in above pseudo-figures, since the proportional deployment hurdles varies enormously by setup, environment, etc.)
This sounds more like a conflation between the "availability" of S&T versus the "presence" of S&T.
Technology being in the public domain does not mean the remote-savannah nomad knows how to use wikipedia, has been trained in the habit of looking for more efficient production methods, is being incentivized by markets or other factors to raising his productivity, or has at his disposal an internet-connected, modern computer, another business nearby that also optimizes production of one of his raw materials / business requirements, and all the tools and practical manuals and human resources and expertise to use them.
Long story short, there's a huge difference between "Someone invented these automated farming tools and... (read more)
Here's a data point, do your own bayes accordingly:
I've frequently been able to solve mind or brain-related problems by doing actions conceptually similar to, or sometimes literally by, praying to God. I'm not a believer in any way, but the simple attempt to convince myself that I was communicating with some higher outside entity that had the power to solve my problem did solve my problem.
Here's the other evidence I have at my disposal, all of which I am confident above 90%:
It's pretty much already provided, there's just that minor inconvenience of algebra between you and the article's vote counts, which IMO is a good thing.
As of 10/15, the article sits at -13, 24% positive (hover mouse over the karma score to see %).
That's 24x-76x = -13 -> 4x = 1:
6 upvotes, 19 downvotes, net -13.
And no, the consequences of talking about politics are not that grave. I mean you seem to blog about politics all the time and you have not yet imploded.
The consequences of talking about politics have historically made empire-sweeping changes about religion, slavery, gender, warfare, welfare, culture, honor, social stigma, social divide, economics, prosperity, technology, and even politics itself!
Talking about politics has also started wars and made people start involving themselves in the slave trade and other such unhappy things.
And because the Internet Law calls for it: Talking about politics is what caused Hitler to become propped up by other people to the authority he had and what caused other people... (read more)
It's ironic in the same way that adding the text "DEFACING STOP SIGNS" under the main text of a stop sign is ironic.
The method used is the very one which is being condemned / warned against, and the fact that it works better than other methods (in both examples) only adds to the irony, as one should assume that something that preaches not doing exactly what it's doing would invalidate itself, rather than its actual effect of producing greater results due to a quirk of humans.
Yes, of course. These particular traits you have deigned to consider for your worthy evaluation do seem, to me as well, perfectly sane.
I think you forgot to activate your Real World Logic coprocessor before replying, and I'm being sarcastic and offensive in this response.
In more serious words, these particular selected characteristics do not comprise the entirety of "the system" aforementioned. I've said that the system is /unlikely/ to be sane, as I do not have complete information on the entire logic and processes in it. I also think we're working off of different definitions of "sane" - here, IIRC, I was using a technical version that could be better expressed as "close to perfectly rational, in the same way perfect logicians can be in theoretical formal logic puzzles".
After several meetings with two other LessWrong readers and several "outside" friends or acquaintances interested in rationality, we've established that we'll meet every Monday at 18:00.
At this next meetup, we'll attempt to solidify-in-practice some key concepts of LW-style epistemology and start moving into the realm of training thought habits for using words (more) correctly.
If you're interested in joining us, we're interested in having you! If you have questions, please contact Paul_G or myself.
We don't really have a public signal yet, so if you want to avoid the possible embarrassment of asking random people in the café if they're here for the LessWrong meetup, I recommend getting in touch with us.
I heard Ritalin has a solution. Couldn't pay attention long enough to verify. ba-dum tish
On a serious note, isn't the whole killing-the-Earth-for-our-children thing a rather interesting scenario? I've never seen it mentioned in my game theory-related reading, and I find that to be somewhat sad. I'm pretty sure a proper modeling of the game scenario would cover both climate change and eaten-by-red-giant.