Samuel Hapák


Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Only if they volunteer.
  4. It’s called taxes.
  5. Why would I? Everyone should have a right to harm themselves if they wish so.
  6. Never. Privacy is much more important than few lives saved.
The Unexpected Hanging Paradox

Five days is too short, but if the judge instead said you'll die in the next month and it will be a complete surprise for you, it would be easy to execute.


Algorithm is simple, every day an executioner throws a coin. If it's heads, prisoner lives for another day. If it's tails, prisoner dies that day. By having 50% chance to live, if the prisoner is taken to be executed, it is a surprise for him. Now the only problem is, if by some small chance a tails wouldn't fall in the stipulated timeframe. In the original problem, chances of that are 1/32. Pretty small, but non-zero. However, for 30 days it's 10^-9, which is small enough to be pretty damn sure that the judgement will be fulfilled.

Did anybody calculate the Briers score for per-state election forecasts?

Nate Silver's predictions were changing too much over the time. If those probabilities were legit, you'd be able to sell binary options based on them. If Nate would do that, he'd went bankrupt, because he created lot of arbitrage opportunities.

You make few wrong assumptions here:

  1. Rent is much cheaper than mortgage. I don't know about your country, but where I live mortgage is cheaper than rent. People actually buy flats, rent them out, pay mortgage out of rent income and even make small cash on top of it.
  2. Comparing house to farmland is not fair. I can start comparing house to having kitchen utensils. Most of the people I know still cook their own food instead of ordering deliveries. And most of the people I know buy cars instead of renting them.
  3. When you rent, you don't have a control over your house. You would like to get new kitchen? Well, your landlord has different idea. So what, you gonna move out? Every stupid thing you want changed, you don't really can.
  4. Lastly, it's a hedge. If you buy house to get wealthy, that might not be best idea. But if you buy it, because you want to live long term somewhere, then mortgage is a way to get "guaranteed rent". No need to worry that because of some stupid market bubble, suddenly your rent will skyrocket.
Arguments for the existence of qualia

Most of people believe in an existence of the world around us. When I say existence, I don't mean existence in a mathematical sense such as "there exists ε > 0", I mean existence as something "real", "fundamental".

On the other hand, the very same people believe there is nothing such as "soul, qualia, god, call it whatever you like it". I find that strange, because every single argument against existence of soul can be used against existence of the physical world around us.

Take this one for example:

"Of course you say that you feel like you're more than a mere atoms, that's just a manifestation of the way atoms inside you are aligned."

And contrast it with:

"Of course it seems that mathematical model is real and stuff is happening there, it's by the very definition of that mathematical model that it should look real".

Being the (Pareto) Best in the World

Something is missing in this explanation. Why isn’t everyone super rich?

Tal Yarkoni: No, it's not The Incentives—it's you

It's a huge difference whether the reviewer is some anonymous person unrelated to the journal or whether it's an editor in chief of the journal itself. I don't think it's appropriate to call the latter peer-review (there are no "peers" involved), but that's not important.

Editor in chief has a strong motivation to have a good quality journal. If he rejects a good article, it's his loss. On the contrary, anonymous peer have stronger motivation to use this as an opportunity to promote (get cited) his own research than to help journal curate the best science.

Let me try to rephrase the shift I see in science. Over the 20th century, science became bureaucraciesed, the process of "doing science" was largely formalised and standardised. Researchers obsess about impact factors, p-values, h-indexes, anonymous peer reviews, grants, currents...

There are actual rules in place that determine formally whether you are "good" scientist. That wasn't the case over the most of the history of the science.

Also the "full-time" scientist who never did any other job than academy research was much less common in the past. Take Einstein as an example.

Tal Yarkoni: No, it's not The Incentives—it's you

Royal Society in 1660 and current academia are very different beasts. For example the current citations/journal’s game is pretty new phenomenon. Peer-review wasn’t really a thing 100 years ago. Neither complex grant applications.

Tal Yarkoni: No, it's not The Incentives—it's you

Academia in the current form isn’t Lindy. It’s not like we’re doing this thousands of years. Current system of Academia is at most 70 years old.

Tal Yarkoni: No, it's not The Incentives—it's you

Is it necessary so? Today science means you spend considerable portion of your time doing bullshit instead of actual research. Wouldn't you be in a much better position doing quality research if you're earning good salary, saving a big portion of it, and doing science as a hobby?

Load More