User Profile

star44
description6
message2676

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Perception of the Concrete vs Statistical: Corruption

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
10

Would you notice if science died?

2y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
40

Actually existing prediction markets?

3y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
20

The Cold War divided Science

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
53

Games People Play

8y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
8

Recent Comments

I think that this is a good example of the problems with the term steelmanning. What is the point of steelmanning? Different people have different meanings, derived from different purposes. You ask if you are "steelmanning them well enough," but I cannot answer that without knowing what you mean and...(read more)

In particular, one could ask: Do people take advantage of the options in the voting systems that they do have? To what extent do Australians make use of ranked choice? I don't know. It appears to me that most British Labour Party members,† faced with a slate of 5 candidates for PM, restrict their co...(read more)

>I have never yet seen an informal conjunctive breakdown of an allegedly low probability in which the final conclusion actually required every one of the premises.

How about the Drake equation?

It is ambiguous whether it allows panspermia, but I think it holds up pretty well.

What do you mean by "Newtonian-Einsteinian paradigm"? Galileo invented relativity and Newton rejected it.

I agree with your conclusions, but I have some complaints about this essay. Do you really need 5000 words to present this? I’m not sure I’m reading you correctly, but you seem to boil it down to 3 points. Why not cut out most of the other material? The 3 points that you present in the dialogue seem...(read more)

>>I haven't seen the linked "The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential" mentioned in the book

>It's what he's referring to when he mentions 'Philadelphia', see the SSC comments.

Specifically [here](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/04/ot77-opium-thread/#comment-507481)

The passage is...(read more)

What odds do you put that there is an English copy in a library in the Netherlands? (as opposed to, eg, a catalogue error)

But I'm being told that this is "meta-uncertainty" which right-thinking Bayesians are not supposed to have.

Hm. Maybe those people are wrong??

Nope.

In case you think "grant money" means "salary," it doesn't. If one person gets 5x as much grant money, he doesn't get 5x as much salary. If the group pretends to be 1 person, it loses out on the salary money.

Grants are budgeted for specific projects and are mainly used to hire people (grad student...(read more)

Wikipedia says that [Elon Musk's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Family) 5 sons were via IVF. The mother was 32 and 34 at the births, which is awfully young for IVF. Maybe they had fertility problems, but maybe they did embryo selection. Except that they probably couldn't select for anythin...(read more)