again, I mostly agree with you. however a few thing I want to submit for consideration:
-unrelated but I am mildly miffed at the comparison of me to a child with the seeming implication of lack of knowledge, power and agency [also did you just called me weak will lol?]. Although this may not be the intended effect.
-If I make take my point to the extreme, say on one side of the spectrum we have what you describe "win-win" situation on the other imagine a chip in your brain that stimulates your pleasure centre when you think of buying the product. I am sure w... (read more)
while I agree with most of what you said and in an ideal world ad should work in a win-win manner as you described, I have cut out as many ads from my life as possible since they are significantly net harmful in my experience.
the problem that I found, and you don't seem to address, is that ads are not just a simple showing of "I have the stuff you may want". It is usually an attempt of manipulation using primarily superstimulus or social engineer to maximize profit for the advertisers. e.g. for a car ad they show happy people living exciting lives which ha... (read more)
I will think on this
this is a web novel that explore a similar premise:https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/28111/ultra-ai
For all the flak that Qanon is getting for their beliefs and their allegedly atrocious epistemic hygiene, one must admire them for at least one thing. They are a people who act.
They are willing to risk their saving, their reputation, or even their life because they think it is the right thing to do.
Granted, we found what they believe in hilarious. But how many of us actually act on our beliefs. We are besieged by doubt and false humility. Confused and lost. We stood paralyzed by indecision.
And so with help from our unlikely friends, we are reminded that it's not enough to be right. You must act or you might as well not believe in anything.
forgive me if I misunderstand you.
but from my point of view there can only be 3 stands on looking at behavior.
encourage [or push for]
discourage [or push against]
do not touch and stay away.
for a simplified story say I am currently spending 4 hours every day consuming mindless entertainment just to make myself feel good enough to go to work.
my friends believe that it's too much and/or not typical. So I converted one hour into productive time [exercise, study, etc] which results in heartburn.
I want to be able to communicate my internal experience so my friends can suggest an alternative way I can convert that hour without hurting myself.
huhm, I didn't realize I was asking multiples question at once, thank for clarifying, that was helpful.
your answer seems to give me something, I am not sure what. I would have to meditate on it.
I'll try out what you suggest though I am a bit foggy on the detail. Will see how it turn out.
ooohhhh yes, this makes something clicked for me. I have not considered it in relation to simple acquaintances.
uhm take the rational norm in lesswrong. But imagine for some reason people have a limit on how rational they can get, so they behave irrationally sometimes when they hit their limit. From the outside, you can't tell whether a person is behaving irrationally because they hit their limit or for other reasons. If you do nothing your community is getting more irrational, if you push all people to be more rational you risk hurting people at their limit.
replace rationality with whatever group norm that is beneficial to enforce, and that is pretty close to why I want to find a way to reliably signal limit.
this makes sense, but I am also in the reverse position where I saw a friend heading down a destructive path where he is constantly complaining about his current situation and also claim that he is at the limit of will power to change [even before the covid thing].
I am at a loss as to how I should evaluate his statement to determine my action. i.e. should I take his statement at face value and let him arrange his own life to suit his limited capacity or should I push him to change despite his statement otherwise?
in short, I found it hard to determine if other people actually hit their limit or not.
so I should have phrased it as manipulating the media by boosting or obscuring certain signals to drive popular sentiment, promoting the Cabal of Scientists agenda?
I am confused as to what you meant. I couldn't google what you meant by energy flux, if you don't mind elaborating?
[Epistemic status: conspiracy theory/raving of the mads]We all know that GPD/standard of living all track with energy use, yet arguably the most convenient and widespread energy sources current are fossil fuels, which saw mass adoption with the start of the industrial revolution. Which happened, it can be said without hyperbole, eons ago .
For some time, nuclear fission seems poised to replace fossil fuel, yet a series of unfortunate events permanently sour the public perception of this technology [Chernobyl, Fukushima]. Even in countries t... (read more)
wikipedia shows the same rise of doctor per capita that look suspiciously the same as the lawyer rise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Physicians_in_the_United_States_per_10,000_people_(1850-2009).svg
It does not follow for me, say "yelling" is a type of "talking" this we all agree.
but when I say "I am yelling" I am giving more/different information than just "I am talking"
sure mere "assertion" is a type of "signalling"
but for me when we use "signalling" I infered that we are doing things differently than "asserting"
is this what you mean?
but there is a great body of work proving that Vit D is beneficial for treating respiratory infection in general [I can cite on request] so unless most respiratory infections secretly involved cytokine storm [which I don't believe to be true] or Vit D is beneficial in other ways than what you suggest.
comment above suggested that the benefit is from Vit D prevent the pneumonia from covid from getting worse, and I found the argument persuasive
– A study in Indonesia found that out of the patients that died from COVID-19, 98.9% of them were deficient in vitamin D, while only 4% of the patients with sufficient vitamin D died.
-A study of patients in New Orleans found that 84.6% of the COVID-19 patients in the ICU were deficient in Vitamin D while only 4% of the patients in the ICU had sufficient levels of Vitamin D.
-A study in the Philippines found that for every standard deviation increase in vitamin D people were 7.94 times more likely to have a mild rather than severe COVID-19 outcome and
>>> 2. Death rates in countries with high incidence of vitamin D deficiency e.g. Belgium, Italy, versus those with low levels (Scandinavia even Sweden, who eat oily fish and supplement/fortify).
if you don't mind expanding on this, Germany however have very low fatality rate, yet for data as of 2015 they have the same level of vit D deficency as Italy
Paul graham did one 2006
as someone who is working in ED in Australia, I can say that Lesswrong has been consistently predict the behaviors of my hospital management by 2-3 days.
for example: I've read a lesswrong post arguing that covid-19 is serious and people should stock up while my manager was still telling us to just calm people down if asked. The stance was reversed 2-3 days later.
Slatestarcodex recommended the wide spread use of masks a whole week before my local health district recommened the same thing.
I am not certain that being slow is not part of the system design. but Lesswrong has allow me to predict future hospital policies quite consistently.
I just skimmed the article, but given that you already willing to make suck huge investment in capital and space, I just got a feeling it's easier if you just have a grow room or an algae bio-reactor running at night. the immediate benefit would be the hardware are available in consumer form and most of the design parts have been attempted.
This way the on going cost would only be marginally higher [back of envelope calculation] and you would reap other benefit beside. [food or algae oil]
Back of the envelope: a person exhales about as much carbon as they eat, and a plant removes carbon from the air only by increasing its size, so to remove one person's CO2 exhalations, you would need to grow as much plant matter as they ate. That's not impossible, but at that point you're looking at something more like a greenhouse than like a grow room.
yeah, I dropped the ball on that one, the grow box is out but I got a feeling a grow room is still possible but this is splitting hair.
I am wondering if I also dropped the ball on the algae claim
I vaguely remember the 4 g/L/day but on further inspection, I now realise that we can't ever reach that efficiency. If we use the 1 g/L/day but human use 1kg/day (they use less in sleep don't they?) divided by 2/3 it would be about 1.5 m3 (still quite big) and we have to account for the actual foot print which would be much higher (2x higher? 3 m3?).
I am tempted to argue that we don't have to match the CO2 production rate so perfectly since the CO2 should naturally diffuse a bit, but let's leave some margin of error on our side.
for t... (read more)