EA Forum developer
When I had the chance to drive an electric car recently, I turned off "one pedal driving". I bet you could in a Tesla. Note for next time!
This sounds like some dark magic to me.
This post was a great dive into two topics:
I think this post was good on it's first edition, but became great after the author displayed admirable ability to update their mind and willingness to update their post in light of new information.
Overall I must reluctantly only give this post a +1 vote for inclusion, as I think the books are better served by more general rationality content, but I'm terms of what I would like to see more of on this site, +9. Maybe I'll compromise and give +4.
This is great. Encouragement to turn it into a top level post if you want it.
Spot the problem with this statement:
The Galleri test did not detect DNA methylation patterns that are associated with cancer in your blood sample. In a clinical validation study, fewer than1% of individuals with this result were projected to have cancer.
It seems like a large amount of work of this post is being done by:
So people seem skeptical that we can cover large areas with these lamps.
Maybe the experts are thinking of large-scale deployments in schools, hospitals, airports, conference centers? I feel like numbers seem important.
It would help your signal-boosting if you hit space after pasting that url, in which case the editor would auto-link it.
(JP, you say, you're a dev on this codebase, why not make it so it auto-links it on paste — yeah, well, ckeditor is a pain to work with and that wasn't the default behavior.)
I think the problem with zoom meetings is not the meeting itself, but instead the bounds of the meeting. It's easier to have better coordination if you can freely wander in and out of a casual conversation. It's hard to get super-in-sync over, say, 60 minutes a day of facetime. To put another way, zoom does fine for "full meeting" mode, but much worse for casual, semi-meeting mode. VR does nothing to solve the second category, so I'm skeptical.
I really buy the argument Sinclair makes about reducing trivial inconveniences here. Let’s make a model.
Ambiguity has two main negative effects, according to me:
Let’s set 1. aside for now. 2. seems like a big deal for sure. But also big is the drag on creating prediction markets imposed by Metaculus-style process. The way to balance these two seems to me to be a question that hinges on what you want your impact to be. If you’re trying to make the world as good a place as possible, you might have quite a strong preference for there being plenty of markets that can be made with low overhead. If the experience for forecasters is bad enough, then you won’t get predictions on those questions, but my empirical belief is that Manifold is striking a better balance right now than Metaculus.
As for 1., again, we can answer it according to, what’s most useful for our goals, and again, I want to claim Manifold is doing well here.
tl;dr There are real tradeoffs here.
I like the post btw!