Wiki Contributions


there are also people still working very hard not to get covid who risk serious consequences if they were to get sick


FWIW my partner is in this position, we have plans to fly for the first time since 2019 this March, and I am perfectly fine with your decision and decision-making process.

No, it wouldn't imply that, at all. One can very easily care about something's preference as an individual and work to make a new class of thing which will be more useful than the class of thing that individual belongs to.

It clearly doesn't look like a mixture of a few Gaussians

It does to me. If their means are close enough compared to their variances, it'll look like a unimodal distribution. For a good example, a student t distribution is a mixture of gaussians with the same mean and variances differing in a certain way, and it looks exactly like these images.

See the first image here:'s_t-distribution

When investigating distributions from a completely different source, I thought for a while

  • these are all pretty gaussian! except for the bits on the right, and I know where those come from

then recognized that their tails were wider and thought

  • maybe they're ... student-t or something? [confused]

and eventually realized

  • oh, of course, this is a mixture of lots of gaussians; each natural class induces a gaussian in the limit, but this distribution represents a whole slew of natural classes, and most of their means are quite similar, so yeah, it's gonna look like a fatter-tailed gaussian with some "outliers"

and I think this probably happens quite a lot, because while CLT ==> gaussian, nature rarely says "here's exactly one type of object!"

I tried for a while to identify

the histogram of snarks by waking-time as a mixture of gaussians

but was unable to make much progress; my guess is that either

there are 2+ classes with very high variance, polluting everything, or maybe some snarks have a different distribution with a longer right tail than normal.

I did note that

Looks like we don't hunt Crumbling and are strongly biased against hunting Blunt, so maybe I'll just keep to conventional wisdom there. Of the remaining, very close to exactly 3% aren't hunted, with no discernible correlations? Maybe that's just the baseline "don't hunt this" chance.

So I fell back to

First remove all Crumbling and Blunt, then Just pretend you can treat every variable as independent, then pretend you can treat every pair of variables as independent after accounting for first-order effects. Grab log-likelihoods and smush them all together.

Which led me to

Not sure how many to hunt, but in this order:
['V', 'Y', 'G', 'P', 'Q', 'L', 'H', 'W', 'C', 'M', 'B', 'N', 'J', 'R', 'D', 'X', 'K', 'F']

The two suggested criteria would lead to either
['V', 'Y', 'G', 'P', 'Q', 'L'] (maximize my survival), or
['V', 'Y', 'G', 'P', 'Q', 'L', 'H', 'W', 'C', 'M', 'B', 'N', 'J', 'R', 'D'] (maximize snark count EV)

Had I submitted in time, I probably would have chosen to stop at either H, W, or C, because my estimated boojum probabilities have an inflection point there. If I were trying to "beat" everyone else, I'd have stopped at C; if I were ignoring everyone else, I'd have stopped at H, which, interestingly, is only one more snark than the bare minimum.

Ramble your question into a mic, get a good coherent answer. I will hate using audio. Newer generations will not even notice.

My friend and I played because it looked like a very good rendition of a simple thing. And it was. We both stopped, because (translated) we didn't want to get got. The last thing he said to me about it was that "it feels amazingly good to body someone after they snapped for 8" and I think that dynamic is completely sufficient to explain why I, too, would:

And yet I keep often not folding. Before finishing this I picked off a clear redouble pure bluff for the full eight, and all that. Who knows. I’m not exactly taking notes.

When you win, it's awesome. When you lose, it was just cubes. Your utility is not even close to linear in cube difference. That's my read.

In 2008, which is a very long time ago, Eliezer wrote, hugely paraphrased:

There are tons of huge blobs of computation. Some of them look a lot like "Did anyone get killed?  Are people happy?  Are they in control of their own lives? ..." If I were to know more, upgrade my various forms of brainpower, be presented with all the good-faith arguments about morality, etc etc then I would converge on one of those huge blobs that look a lot like "Did anyone get killed?  Are people happy?  Are they in control of their own lives? ..." when I did moral reasoning. This huge blob of computation is what I call "right". Right now, my moral intuitions are some evidence about the huge blob I'd converge to. Other humans would also converge to some huge blob of computation, and I have hopes it would look extremely similar to the one I would. Maybe it would even be identical! The reason this is plausible is because good-faith arguments about morality are likely to work similarly on similar intelligence architectures/implementations, and if we ended up with, say, 3 similar blobs, it seems fairly likely every(enhanced)one upon inspection of all 3 would choose the same 1. But at the very least there would be enormous overlaps. Regardless, "right" aka the blob of computation is a thing that exists no matter whether humans exist, and luckily our moral intuitions give us evidence of what that blob is. Certainly intelligences could exist which didn't have good pathways to discovering it, and worse, don't care about it, but we don't like them. They're "wrong".

I did not get make a chance to work on this but I really want to. I commit to making my own solution before Monday January 9th and to avoid looking at the posted solution until I've made my own.

Ah, I was confused the whole time.

how the spell casting takes place, and how to Counterspell

It happens in 5 steps

I thought you were trying to show us how to Counterspell! :D

Load More