HT to Tyler Cowen: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/erik-brynjolfsson-interviews-daniel-kahneman.html
Ah, of course. Thanks.
The term "affordance width" makes sense, but perhaps there's no need to coin a new term when "tolerance" exists already.
> A ∨ B ⟷ ¬A ⟶ B
But this is not true, because ¬(¬A ⟶ B) ⟶ A ∨ B. With what you've written you can get from the left side to the right side, but you can't get from the right side to the left side.
What you need is: "Either Alice did it or Bob did it. If it wasn't Alice, then it was Bob; **and if i...(read more)
Interesting post, and I'm sure "not having thought of it" helps explain the recency of vehicular attacks (though see the comment from /r/CronoDAS questioning the premise that they are as recent as they may seem).
**Another factor**: Other attractive methods, previously easy, are now harder--lowerin...(read more)
How much support is there for promotion of prediction markets? I see three levels:
1\. Legalization of real-money markets (they are legal in some places, but their illegality or legal dubiousness in the US--combined with the centrality of the US companies in global finance--makes it hard to run a b...(read more)
> 1\. We want public policy that's backed up by empiric evidence. We want a government that runs controlled trials to find out what policies work.
This seems either empty (because no policy has _zero_ empirical backing), throttling (because you can't possibly have an adequate controlled trial on _e...(read more)
Upvoted for the suggestion to reword the euthanasia point.
Useful distinction: "rationalist" vs. "rational person." By the former I mean someone who deliberately strives to be the latter. By the latter I mean someone who wins systematically in their life.
It's possible that rationalists tend to be geeks, especially if the most heavily promoted methods for ...(read more)
Hey, I just saw this post. I like it. The coin example is a good way to lead in, and the non-quant teacher example is helpful too. But here's a quibble:
> If we follow Bayes’ Theorem, then nothing is just true. Thing are instead only probable because they are backed up by evidence.
The map is not ...(read more)