All of irarseil's Comments + Replies

I know it's phonology and spelling rather than phonetics you're mainly talking about in this post, but you talk about allophones anyway, so I feel I may ask this. Will tone / pitch or stress play a role in the language?

1Zmavli Caimle1y
I thought very much about having a simple high-low tone accent system like Japanese or Ancient Greek. It would make SSM very, very easy and simple, given that I can just make word beginnings take the high tone and continuing syllables take the low tone (or the reverse). However, I'm unduly biased against tonemes, so I didn't include them. Toaq is a loglang with a seven tone system, if you're into tonemes. Stress will not. I already have phonemic vowel length and consonant length. The only remaining differences possible are tone (which is pitch accent), and volume. I don't want to have volemes (do those even exist?).

Do you intend Sekko to be as expressive as natlangs? Where are you envisioning Sekko will get its vocabulary from?

1Zmavli Caimle1y
Yes, I do intend it to be as expressive as natlangs. It will be very difficult, but I want to try. I'm planning on Sekko vocabulary to be fully a-priori. I actually haven't made many word forms aside from those in example sentences. I'm considering using a Lojban style word-blending system to derive words, except that I would only select languages that have phonemic vowel and consonant length distinctions, like Finnish, Japanese, and Classical Latin.

Is the order (pseudo-)random? Does it have a hidden meaning I might not be aware of? What's your purpose sharing this?


(Formato edited) There could also be effects of decreasing demand for non-AI-generated analogues, because of potential consumers of this kind of content being satisfied with these virtual, AI-generated, no-one-was-harmed analogues, hence reducing harm. I can see how sex with real children leads to moral condemnation and to legal punishment. But if no real child is ever involved in this it seems to me that it's an instance of "disgust leads to moral condemnation leads to legal punishment / prohibition of the material".

You can surround text with two asterisks (*) on each side to bold text, at least in the Markdown editor. With the rich-text editor, you can just click on the bold button.

I can confirm that my maths teachers at primary school were terrible: if you stepped a little bit outside what's in the book, they were absolutely lost.

They were a lot better in secondary school, possibly because they had a much stronger mathematical education (secondary school teachers usually have a university degree in the subject they teach or in a closely related field, at least in my country).

I also absolutely agree with what you say about overconfidence and the need to revisit a subject / layer instead of thinking "it's over for good".

If 'what are you doing?' generalises, I'd say people would end up answering just the same way people answer to 'how are you?' or 'how are you doing?'. In fact, in Spanish '¿qué haces?' or in Greek 'Τι κάνεις;' (both literally meaning 'what are you doing?') can be used, depending on formality and closeness, as greetings, and the usual answers are as shallow as 'fine'. In other languages, 'where are you going?' is a customary greeting and again it's not expected to be answered with an honest description of where you're physically going to, but rather with another more or less fixed expression similar to 'fine'.

Here's one article which shows a different view on this:

FWIW, my experience is that I learn better going up and down the different layers, rather than exhausting and completely "automating" the lower layers before attempting to go to the advanced material on the upper layers.

Plus, some experience with something what you're learning is useful for is a great motivator and can help focus.

I guess the failure to avoid is the conclusion "I have already done this successfully once, no need to pay attention to this ever again, because I am already good at it". Practicing it is one option, doing something related and then revisiting it later seems like even better option, because it can give you a different perspective. By the way, in the linked article, I can confirm that this little known thing is true for most teachers. It may sound weird if you had good math education, but that is an exception, not the rule: I wish that instead of giving up on math, we could find a way to teach the teachers. Technically it should not be difficult (we only need to teach them the elementary school math, but in a way they will understand), the main problem would probably be admitting that "teachning elementary school math to elementary school math teachers" is a thing that needs to be done (to avoid the situation where the teachers are ashamed to participate, because that would mean admitting that they actually suck at their jobs). Perhaps redesigning the math curriculum, and then teaching math to math teachers under the pretense that we are "preparing them for the new curriculum" could be a solution.

You have an idea of how likely something is to happen, or an estimate of a figure, or a model of something in the real world (e.g: Peter is a guy who loves cats). You happen to get new information about this something (e.g: you see Peter viciously killing a cute kitten). You'd most likely update, with both epistemical consequences (you'd probably stop believing Peter is the cat-loving guy you thought) and instrumental or practical consequences (you wouldn't ask him to look after your cats while you are away on holiday). The way I see it, Bayes' Theorem tel... (read more)

I'd be curious to know if you kept on doing that and, if so, what the results were.

I didn’t do it any more. I forgot about it next time I showered.

A similar approach has worked for me better than a more split-time approach. I'm aware of the forgetting curve and I certainly forget a lot of the contents afterwards, but the global structure seems to remain in the brain and changes to the way of thinking or of solving problems after these intense study sessions also seem to remain for longer than the details.

I've also tried doing some incremental reading / incremental learning and although the contents stay for longer, I don't feel the same kind of enlightenment or learning taking place. It feels a bit l... (read more)

Right now, I'm experiencing a miniature version of this. I'm learning about how optogenetics works. This technique depends on an understanding of both neuron action potentials and G Protein Coupled Receptors, which has forced me to review each of those structures. This in turn forces me to review the structures of the various molecules and enzymes involved, which forces mild review of even deeper precursors such as Glutamine-Histidine-Serine structures in active sites of enzymes. I imagine that if you weren't cramming for an exam, and were genuinely interested in the subject matter, and were consciously trying to develop your "mental movie" to build understanding, this would be the natural approach to take. In general, I really wonder to what extent our educational system's need to test and measure students has operationalized "learning" in a way that's deeply different from what would be optimal for, say, producing competent scientists.

Thank you for the interesting article. I completely agree that curiosity ("the spark") is an important component of learning, and no technique will give it on its own. Have you experimented with learning one textbook or article at a time vs learning several concurrently (alternating between them)? If so, what are your conclusions on this? I know the relevant results of spaced repetition, the test effect, distributed practice vs massed practice, interleaving... but in practice how does it translate to a sustainable learning routine? How often do you change subjects when studying more than one thing at a time?

Thanks for reading! It’s hard to do a controlled experiment on this. Of course I’ve learned several subjects at once, but I haven’t compared, say, budgeting an hour a day for learning one topic until it’s done, vs budgeting half an hour a day for each of two subjects for the same amount of time. That’s what you’d really need to do to compare. I’d say that the “multi tower study strategy” concept is an interesting hypothesis, not a settled conclusion :) I wrote it mostly to clarify my own conceptual thinking.

Your comment looks surprisingly fit for, which makes me think your intention may have been to submit it on the other post.

1Jarred Filmer2y
Huh, you are correct that was indeed my intention 😄 no idea how I managed that.

I'd say 'anger', as many other such psychological constructs, is ambiguous and can refer either to a trait / feature (an anger-prone person, a person who tends to become angry easily) or to a state (a person who is momentarily angry). The same distinction can be made vis-à-vis other emotions (sadness, happiness, disgust, anxiety...) and perhaps personality traits. I'd propose the terms 'momentarily angry' and 'anger-prone' (and similarly for the other emotions: momentarily sad and sadness-prone, etc) if there's a need to disambiguate, but not being a native English speaker I'm not really sure of them being fit.

Duolingo now has more languages than when the OP was written, among them Mandarin Chinese.

Is this sentence correct, or is a verb missing after 'employee'? 'every extra dollar the employee is a dollar that the employer could have and vice versa'

I also think one of the are's is extra: 'Two questions that are worth asking: How important are the results of these games are to our well-being?'

The science about how commuting long distances makes us unhappy and less healthy made me change my beliefs and also take action. I used to downplay the amount of suffering and health issues that accompany regular commuting, plus the risks of e.g. driving a car on a daily basis, especially very early when I was still incompletely awaken.

Reading about this and all the invaluable articles by lukeprog on lesswrong ("How to be happy" and others) made me form a more accurate belief of what really brings about happiness and satisfaction to our lives.

I l... (read more)

The evidence seems to be mixed, with successive experiments contradicting (or at least nuancing) one another, as a quick 'Spoilers reduce enjoyment' Google search shows. For example:

I really appreciate your bringing this topic as it has allowed me to update in the direction of worrying less about the possibility of coming across a spoiler: upon further reflection, I conclude that, at least for me personally, they do not seem to affect my enjoyment as much as I thought they did, an... (read more)

Note that I meant to say that I personally really dislike spoilers despite the 'scientific' evidence saying that I don't. But it could very well be that the evidence is actually mixed (thanks for the link!); I hadn't looked into it more than seeing 1 or 2 papers shared on Facebook. You did that well:)

In which ways is the concept "gratificación" different from the well established "intrinsic motivation", where you like doing an activity for its intrinsic enjoyment rather than for its usefulness as an instrument towards a goal or its leading to an external reward?

That might be the concept I'm looking for. I'll think whether it covers exactly what I'm trying to say...

I think you should be aware that lesswrong is read in countries other than the USA, and writing about "our planes" in a forum where not everyone is American to mean "American planes" can lead to misunderstandings or can discourage others from taking part in the conversation.