User Profile


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
Personal Blogposts
personPersonal blogposts by LessWrong users (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Tidbit: “Semantic over-achievers”

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

[Link] “How to seem good at everything: Stop doing stupid shit”

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Recent Comments

Is there something not-paywalled which describes what the relevant old definitions were?

Your description of TDD is slightly incomplete: the steps include, after writing the test, _running the test when you expect it to fail._ The idea being that if it doesn't fail, you have either written an ineffective test (this is more likely than one might think) or the code under test actually alr...(read more)

> Computers systems comprise hundreds of software components and are only as secure as the weakest one.

This is not a fundamental fact about computation. Rather it arises from operating system architectures (isolation per "user") that made some sense back when people mostly ran programs they wrote ...(read more)

> Plus, the examples (except the first) are all from the literature on mental models.

Then my criticism is of the literature, not your post.

> I meant that you need to generate all of the models if you are going to ensure that the model with the conclusion is valid or as you say not 'inconsisten...(read more)

I appreciate this article for introducing research I was not previously aware of.

However, as other commenters did, I find myself bothered by the way the examples assume one uses exactly one particular approach to thinking — but in a different aspect. Specifically, I made the effort to work through...(read more)

I look at the bizarre false positives and I wonder if (warning: wild speculation) the problem is that the networks were _not trained to recognize the lack of objects_. For example, in most cases you have some noise in the image, so if every training image is _something_, or rather something-plus-noi...(read more)

I wonder: after sufficient adaptation to a rate-of-time sense, could useful mental effects be produced by adjusting the scale?

Apparently that's true of some model rocket motors, but the SRBs have a hollow through the entire length of the propellant, so that it burns from the center out to the casing along the entire length at the same time.

> I'm now actually rather curious about the range safety stuff for the SRBs - one of the dangers of an SRB is that there's basically no way to shut it down, and indeed they kept going for some time after Challenger blew up

What I've heard (no research) is that thrust termination for a solid rocket...(read more)