It's been hard keeping to it, but I do notice myself being more productive when I do. One thing that has stayed is not having an email tab always open. Hoping that over time I get better at following it strictly; it has such immediate positive effects that I'm not so worried I'll gradually forget and stop, like happened with other productivity attempts (e.g. making to-do lists.)

Consider the shortest algorithm that simulates the universe perfectly.

Meaningless, on my metaphysics. Definition is circular - in order to define fundamental you have to already assume that the universe can be simulated "perfectly", but to define a perfect simulation you'll need to rely on concepts like "fundamental", or "external reality".

Assuming that the way the universe looks changes continuously with these constants, it seems strange to insist that if the changes are so small you can't notice them they don't exist.

The assumption is meaningless. It seems strange to me to insist that something "exists", especially infinities, which are never observable. On our actual known physics we have strict limits on how much information can be contained in a finite amount of space, but even if we didn't know that you can't define these concepts in a noncircular manner.

On my metaphysics it's not coherent to talk about "fundamental" constants, for multiple reasons. Try tabooing that and ask about what, if anything, is actually meant.

If you can't measure any of these constants past a hundred significant digits, what does it mean to talk about the constant having any digits beyond that? And what does it mean for a constant to be fundamental?

I really liked this post. As a result of reading it, I'm trialling the following:

Every time I go on my computer or phone, I need to specifically have a plan for one specific thing I am going to do. This can be "check all notifications from X/Y/Z), or "write this one long email", or even, "15 minutes of unstructured time", but it should always be intentional. If I get the urge to do something else, I need to save it for a future session, which can be immediately afterwards.

Yes, but you said they're buying the no-coup shares, which subsidizes a coup. Article contradicts itself. 

Mars buys shares that pay out 5 million Dogecoin if there is not a coup

Suppose the prior implied probability of a regime change is 0.20. Mars can buy its shares for 1 million Dogecoin, pocketing a risk-free net utility equivalent to 4 million Dogecoin.

I'm confused - if the prior probability of a coup is 20% and Mars is buying shares that pay out if no coup, Mars would pay 4M?