User Profile
star0
description0
message24
Recent Posts
Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected
by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines:
• interesting, insightful, useful
• aim to explain, not to persuade
• avoid meta discussion
• relevant to people whether or not they
are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts
(as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
No posts to display.
Rolling all 60 years of bets up into one probability distribution as in your example, we get:
* 0,999999999998 chance of - 1 billion * cost-per-bet * 1 - 0,999999999998 - epsilon chance of 10^100 lives - 1 billion * cost-per-bet * epsilon chance of n * 10^100 lives, etc.
I think what this shows is...(read more)
1) We don't need an unbounded utility function to demonstrate Pascal's Mugging. Plain old large numbers like 10^100 are enough.
2) It seems reasonable for utility to be linear in things we care about, e.g. human lives. This could run into a problem with non-uniqueness, i.e., if I run an identical c...(read more)
Thanks for this. And thanks also for the pointer to Scott's guide.
Did you do any testing pre-pregnancy, i.e. for genetic matchup between you and your husband? And did you do any of the fetal testing mentioned e.g. for autism? Wondering about the cost-benefit on those.
I finished my math PhD thesis in September!
Indeed, conservation laws correspond to symmetries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_Theorem
Along with the other physics-related examples here, Richard Dawkins' pendulum video seems relevant here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsk5yPFm5NM
I was like this from ages 12-18, perhaps? It started because quite a few people actually were mean to me, but my brain incorrectly extrapolated and assumed everyone was. The beginning of the end was when I started to do something that I had defined as the province of the liked-people (in this case...(read more)
Monologues or disjointed verbal fragments. When I am mad at someone (hasn't really happened for a few years :) ) I get into dialogues with them, usually going in circles.
For a teaser, the part about singing logarithms looks cool.
Is this actually incorrect, though? As far as I know, people have problems and inadequacies. When they solve them, they move on to worrying about other things. It's probably a safe bet that the awesome people you're describing do as well.
What probably is wrong is that general awesomeness makes ...(read more)