All of jpulgarin's Comments + Replies

Thanks Sam. I thought about this some more and realized where I went wrong - I was applying the deduction theorem incorrectly (as other comments in this thread have pointed out).

By the way, when you say that PA proves its own inconsistency, do you mean that or that ? From your reasoning I agree that if we assume then we can arrive at and , from which we can conclude that . If you meant that ... (read more)

I don't think there's a flaw in this argument. I'm pretty sure that is a theorem of PA for any sentence . However, even if we consider to be a sentence like , that does not mean that we can conclude that is a theorem of PA, since proving that there doesn't exist a proof for a given sentence in PA is equivalent to proving that PA is consistent, which is not possible if we assume that PA is consistent.

*I* think that there's a flaw in the argument. I could elaborate, but maybe you want to think about this more, so for now I'll just address your remark about ¬□C→C, where C is refutable. If we assume that ¬□C→C, then, since C is false, ¬□C must be false, so □C must be true. That is, you have proven that PA proves □C, that is, since C is contradictory, PA proves its own inconsistency. You're right that this is compatible with PA being consistent--PA may be consistent but prove its own inconsistency--but this should still be worrying.

Sorry :/, it was my fault for posting it at such short notice. No one else came.

There's a chance I'll be back in Bogota during the first week of March. If so, I'll make sure to post it with a bit more notice.

Do you go to Medellin every once in a while? I'm thinking of starting a regular meetup here.

Unfortunately I don't travel much (although there's a 50/50 chance I'll move to Boston later this year), but you can find me on Facebook as carturo222.

Largely a result of Salsa dancing.

Because you have something I aspire to (multiple casual sex partners), why else?

Do casual sex partners count under the "Number of Current Partners" question?

The instructions tell me that higher numbers are for "polyamorous relationships" which makes it seem like a monogamous person who has multiple casual sex partners should answer 0 for that question.

I like you
That is about the excluded middle I was thinking of on those questions. Reference Dan Savage's term "monogamish." This community seems more likely than average to have unusual degrees of relationships. I was also wondering about "preferred" relationship style. I know several who would prefer polyamory in theory but in practice have never had it work out well in practice. Granted, I know several who have never had monogamy work out well in practice and more who have discovered that they were not in fact in strictly monogamous relationships.
5Scott Alexander11y
Good question. I'm going with "no".

I genuinely do not understand how you were insulted by my comment. Could you please explain it to me so I can avoid in the future.

Note, I am not purposely insulting you in this comment.

find tickets for free for strange trips around the world (there are loads)

Can you please elaborate?

I won't elaborate much, sorry, but israel, buddhist monasteries, wealthy institutions, cryonics, puneet sahani... are all cryptic info that might lead you to some. I can only show you the door, you are the one who will have to walk through it. But seriously now, I bet mormons and all those wacky religions in the US might have exploitable things. Universities frequently do as well (if you are in a free governmental University)

There's no disagreement here, you're just confused about semantics.


I see in a reply of yours that you're interested in salsa dancing. By far the most important factor in getting better is to quickly achieve a level of competency that makes salsa socials really fun. I don't think I've gone more than 7 days in the last 2.5 years without attending a salsa social, and this has been the biggest factor in my improvement.

You may already be at this stage since you said you enjoy dancing, but if not I suggest you learn the basics from a friend or a class (I would spend no more than 10 hours on this stage), and then force yourself... (read more)

This is the best description of a fairly strong chess player's thought process that I've read. If it were worth the effort, I would link every person who asked me, "How many moves deep do you calculate in chess?", to your comment.

If the King's Gambit was actually solved, it would be trivial to solve the rest of chess.

Nadie llego a la meetup. Creo que si haces un meetup en Bogota (escojer un tiempo y un sitio), y te comprometes a estar ahi, van a llegar varias personas.

Ah bacano, vas a los meetups de Seattle?

Si! Yo ayudo organizar los. Son muy divertidos. Mucha suerte para ti!

Yo estoy pensando estar en Bogota en los proximos meses, si quieres podemos urganizar una meetup en ese entonces. Tambien podriamos hacer algo atravez de Google hangouts. Te mandare un mensaje privado para cuadrar.

yo vivo en bogotá desde hace un año, y me encantaría asistir a cualquier reunión que haya en la ciudad. Manda un mensaje privado o, todavía mejor, extiende una invitación general a la counidad de r/Colombia en Reddit, quizá con suficiente anticipación como para que vengan a LessWrong y conozcan. Un saludo desde la capital
No, mi papa nacio en Colombia, pero yo estoy en los estados unidos.

I go out social dancing 2-5 times a week.

I'm fairly sure we're limited to 16 chess pieces available to white, otherwise the problem can be trivially solved with 64 queens.

The puzzle is for those 16 initial pieces put anywhere on the chessboard. The color is not an issue.

So the set of pieces you can use is eight pawns, one queen, one kind, two bishops, two knights, and two rooks?

Can the bishops be placed in squares of the same colour?

Yes. Put a piece anywhere you want. And there is no "en passant", no "promotion" and no "castling" and no two step pawn move. If anything of these would matter anyhow.
Yes. They can be placed anywhere. Pawns on the first or the last line, too.

Jasen Murray suggested specific techniques and specific resources, which I unfortunately cannot remember (I was not that interested in that part of RBC).

The food at RBC was awesome, mostly due to a small number of attendees being very good cooks. Many of us also had similar fitness goals with regards to gaining muscle, so we had a 25 pound tub of protein, and cooked high-protein meals.

My diet has been nowhere near as good since leaving RBC.

RBC was mostly young college age students (oldest participant was 29 years old if I recall correctly. I believe I was the first or second youngest at 21). The median age for the minicamps was probably a bit higher, but not substantially so.

The previous camps were held in Berkeley, and I'm fairly sure these will be held there as well. They also picked up the camp participants from the airport last time.

I highlight things, mostly new ideas, that I want to memorize as I'm reading the book (the number of highlights is a good proxy to how good the book was). Then I login to Amazon, and for each highlight I make an Anki card.

This saves me from having to go through the book and find all the highlights, and also from copying the text into Anki (since I can just copy and paste).

A kindle has finally allowed me to start reading one book per week, something I've been trying to do for quite a while now with little success. The ability to buy books instantly, and the fact that it's much easier to take along than an actual book, means I get a ton more reading done. The ability to highlight and have it automatically sync to Amazon servers makes Anki deck making A LOT easier.

You can also sell your gift card for ~80% of its value (just google "sell gift card").

An ebook reader (+ some other prize combination) has occurred to me. I almost bought an ebook reader when they were on sale around Christmas, but couldn't decide between the Nook and Kindle platforms. One thing that worries me is that I have such a hard time reading paper books at the moment; I wonder if an ebook reader only seems like it would improve productivity when in reality it would shortly due to novelty, but then it would wear off. Some questions: * How long have you had it? * Did you notice any drop in reading time from initial ownership to present? * How many anki decks is realistic (I'm aware of anki and how it works but haven't used it regularly)? ETA: Thought of another question -- can you put your finger on what, exactly, allowed you to accomplish your goal vs. when you were reading paper?
A kindle has finally allowed me to stop reading several books per week. For many years previously I've had: open bookshelves around the apartment, near 1000 books, some unread; whenever I walk by, a 30% chance to randomly take down a book, start reading, and come back to the real world several hours later, having missed work/appointment/dinner/sleeptime/chance to sit down. Lots of procrastination, although it has given me a lot of broad, shallow knowledge on many interesting subjects. Today: no printed books left, except for small cache of <100 important ones hidden on upper shelf of closet, which don't have ebook versions; one kindle. Because the Kindle is so bad at arranging and finding books (seriously, no folder support?) it takes around a minute to open a book not read recently. This time-cost alone is enough to prevent almost all of my reading-procrastination. I still read for fun during time pre-set aside for the purpose.
How exactly do you use this to make Anki decks?


[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

This is why I said "average" venture-backed founder. You may have tons of assets such that losing/gaining 10% is not a big deal, or you may be naturally less risk-averse than the average person.

Some level of risk-aversion is rational, and it's not obvious to me if people are naturally over or below that level. it's also not obvious to me at all that people on LW would have unnaturally low risk-aversion.

Ok, I now think it's possible that you were right about the "average" founder, but for a different reason--it only depends on what assumptions we make about the distribution of rationality within the set of all founders. I'm not really interested in that right now. However, I am assuming that the audience of LW is MORE rational than average. They should be LESS risk averse, because "A risk averse agent can not be rational" (source: ) Thus, I believe that it is somewhat disingenuous to use that paper to say that founding a startup has negative expected utility--actually, the EXPECTED utility is very high (because the average outcome is great), and it is very rational. We should definitely be encouraging people here to start startups.

The exact figure I'm aiming for is $5 M USD or above. I'd quit trying to make money as soon as I hit $5 M basically.

If you're planning to take venture capital as part of your plan for making $5M, you'd better hope that the VCs never read that comment.

It's more or less win/lose. Being the average venture-backed founder actually has negative expected utility.

I went and read that paper. I don't think it says that at all. Their exact conclusion is: "An individual with a coefficient of relative risk aversion of 2 and assets of $0.7 million would choose employment at a market salary over becoming an entrepreneur. With lower risk aversion or higher initial assets, the entrepreneurial opportunity is worth more than alternative employment" I didn't understand relative risk aversion, so I looked it up. Here is an example: "[if you have constant relative risk aversion utility and] If you would give up 2% of your wealth to avoid a 50-50 risk of losing or gaining 10%, then you have a coefficient of relative risk aversion of 4." If you would give up only 0.5% of your wealth to avoid the same gamble, you have a coefficient of 1. source: Maybe I'm just not risk averse, but I would not be willing to give up much at all to prevent such a gamble. I'm WAY below a coefficient of 2, and I suspect that many people here on LW are as well.

I've spoken to Carl about the subject and he pointed me to this paper:

This paper puts the success rate of venture-backed companies at ~18%.

That's not the raw data, it's adjusted to match groups for a comparison. If you look elsewhere in the paper: That's for IPOs only, adding in companies that were acquired, and companies that remained private but made their owners a good amount of money via compensation packages and future sale or IPO would further boost the stats. See my 80,000 hours posts on this.
Not everyone gets VC backing, though, which lowers your odds.

Name amnesia (I saw you mention this on the link you gave).

I think this as a result of:

  1. My prior that you're a good hypnotist
  2. My prior that I am a suggestible person
  3. My prior that this can be done through online means

However, it doesn't seem to specify why the very end of life is a significantly more important time than say, the first 12 weeks after turning 65.

It's probably not - I was simply replying to your point about how all 12 week periods of life are equally valid.

More time to think about past experiences and also more time to see their long-term consequences.

That seem like a more general reason we should pay attention to what older people say, and is a valid point. However, it doesn't seem to specify why the very end of life is a significantly more important time than say, the first 12 weeks after turning 65.

Should I care more about making money or doing something that I have a "passion" for?

Depends on what your passion is. If it's something that allows you to make a lot of money, and doesn't otherwise obstruct you from taking part in other things that you enjoy, then your best bet would probably be to choose that - even if there is another, passionless option, which gives you more money.

If on the other hand the things that you are passionate about you do not make money (which will hamper your ability to produce utilons in a variety of ways), then... (read more)

I don't know the statistics but my impression is that the expected value is higher and the variance is lower in finance than in tech. My sample is biased because I don't personally know any rich tech people but I know a lot of rich traders. In general I think it is pretty foolish to think you can walk into a competitive field and make $Millions without even any passion for what you are doing.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of lifestyle and investment strategy are you planning to support a long-term life of the mind on $1M USD? Or is millionaire more of a figure of speech representing "a whole lotta money"? If you make 5% a year on that and live a very frugal lifestyle in a low-cost area, you could do OK, but medical expenses, children, inflation, etc could hurt your capital considerably. I think you'd need a good bit more than $1M to have a large safety margin.
I wonder what the ratio of "people who plan to become millionaires through tech entrepreneurship" to "people who become millionaires through tech entrepreneurship" is. Really, I wonder what it is. I would assume it's rather low, but then, a million dollars isn't really that much. Can moderately successfully start-ups provide a million dollars (in short order), or is it win/lose?
Only a couple of weeks. Easy in the office, still haven't got into the habit at home.

What is your 15 minute morning ritual?

Haha, well that takes openness: first, I wash out my eyes, pee, drink about 8 oz water, and eat a bowl of cereal. This takes about 5 minutes. Then I log onto my computer and read a few posts from the archive of one of my favorite bloggers for about 10 minutes; this allows me to both wake up gradually and painlessly, and to start the day feeling a bit smarter and more inspired. After this I try to work on some of my most important work for the day to get that done early.

I'm totally willing to by hypnotized by you. I'm also willing to bet I cannot be hypnotized.

Be specific. Exactly what experience do you think you are incapable of having? Why do you think this?

I noticed throughout your post you said "turns out she didn't like me" twice, as if this was a simple boolean value that you have to find out the value of.

The truth is that attraction is pretty malleable and it's totally possible that your friend had romantic interest in you which disappeared while having dinner with her, or that the potential date that cancelled on you twice was turned off through non-physical interactions (texts, phonecalls).

Your 3 step action plan sounds solid though. The fundamentals of pick up artistry will also help a ton.

I used a combination of google and to find voice coaches in my city (Waterloo). I settled on the two that looked best, and am now getting 1 half hour session a week from each of them to A/B test which one is better. It costs $20 per half hour session.

I told them that my goal was to have a captivating voice that gets people's attention in small/large groups. They both said that learning how to sing was really important in terms of my stated goals, so right now I'm learning the basics of singing. This includes how to warm up your voice,... (read more)

I am currently trying to become really socially effective. During the next 8 months I plan to:

  • Take voice coaching *
  • Take a public presentation class at my University *
  • Join debate club *
  • Join toastmasters *
  • Get a telemarketing job
  • Get a door-to-door sales job
  • Become a competent pick-up-artist
  • Take an improv acting class

"*" means I'm currently doing this activity.

Can you say more about voice coaching? What does it cost, what kind of exercises do you do, where do you find a coach?

I haven't encountered the rationalist ethic of "psychological pain is unimportant". Can you link to it?

1Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg) 12y
It reminds me of the article on Ugh Fields. Though that doesn't exactly say that 'psychological pain is unimportant', but more that 'psychological pain is based on unreliable emotions, intuitions, and heuristics, and isn't by itself a good reason not to do something'.

Why is this sam0345 character so heavily downvoted?

A habit of expressing his opinions without proper framing. He also occasionally seems to be an anti-liberal of the 'reversed-stupidity' variety.

One wouldn't put all of one's money into one stock in the market because we have decreasing marginal utility towards money. If we didn't and all we wanted was the highest expected value (which is how we should optimize for charity), then we would put our money into the stock that is likeliest to make us the most money.

In other words, I don't want to have a minimum number of lives saved - I want to maximize the number of lives I save.

Perhaps I didn't express my point clearly enough. In fact, I'm certain of it. But I more trying to express that there is some element of risk in a charity. Perhaps there is a probability is corrupt, etc. and isn't as efficient as it's rated as. A better example is likely this: Assuming it will succeed, the SIAI is pretty unarguably the most important charity in existence. But that's a huge assumption, and it makes some sense to hedge against that bet and distribute money to other charities as well.

This would only be useful if there is skill in tech entrepreneurship, and it's not just luck. The fact that previously successful entrepreneurs have a higher success rate points to that, but it's hardly conclusive.

Creating good exercises for traditional concepts that form the building blocks of rationality is probably the best way to go about this. Once you've shown that you can create engaging exercises, and have formed relationships with people at Khan Academy, your suggestions will have more weight and you can create more experimental type exercises. Sal can only create about 10 videos a day, and the requests he gets from teachers using Khan Academy in actual classrooms (or from the people giving him funding) probably trump those he gets from people on a rational... (read more)

Youtube video is down :(

Here's another link

Awesome! I'll be back in Waterloo in January and I hope these continue till then. I had plans to start them myself.

Load More