Using numbers from this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ucjfY46L6qyXefvBT/quick-examination-of-miles-per-micromort-for-us-drivers-with
Assuming you're in a passenger vehicle, without correcting for drunk drivers/unsafe drivers, you have 132 miles per micromort. Using the $10 million value for your life:
I think that means that driving 13.2 miles is equivalent to $1.
If you're willing to categorize yourself in the least risky class in the linked post, that's 54.8 miles for $1.
The other thing to consider is how much you care about other risks to your life. For instance, I've been living with (a limit of) 200 microcovid a week for the past year. I'm young and healthy, so let's say that's 2 micromorts. Given that amount, I should be comfortable driving (a maximum of) 264 miles each week, as they provide the same risk.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the effectiveness of j&j and moderna/pfizer are 66% vs 95%, respectively, and this effectiveness comes in at the same time. Suppose you keep yourself to a constant risk of x per week, without factoring in vaccine protection, based on the case rates and variants in your area. If n is the number of weeks between getting the j&j vaccine vs the moderna/pfizer vaccine, and m is the number of weeks between getting the moderna/pfizer vaccine and the end of the pandemic, then you have the risk of (1-(x*.33)^(n+m)) if you get the j&j vaccine, and the risk of (1-x)^n * (1-(x*.04))^m if you get the moderna vaccine.
(1-x)^n * (1-(x*.04))^m
If I was offered the j&j vaccine tomorrow, vs the moderna vaccine I have scheduled in 3 weeks, and we assume the pandemic will be over in the first world by september 1st (20 weeks out), and my weekly (non-vaccinated risk budget) is 200 microcovids, then I would be looking at 0.132% chance of covid with j&j vs. 0.093% chance of covid with moderna/pfizer. So, it's worth it for me to wait it out. But, if you think the pandemic will be over in half the time, then it's 0.066% vs 0.085%, and so you should take the j&j vaccine.
Theory of Knowledge was perhaps the most useful class I ever took.
Oh, what did I do during it? I sat in the back and read the Sequences.
I also think Scott Aaronson's view of this issue is interesting: https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html
His opinion is that you only really have two choices for a system with inherent uncertainty. Classical probability theory, or quantum amplitudes with the Born rule. I'm not sure to what extent the argument holds up, but he makes some compelling cases that the obvious alterations to probability theory or quantum amplitudes wouldn't add up to normality.
IQ-like Chinese test
What test does this refer to? I'd love to see a side by side comparison of a western IQ test vs one of these tests.
No, that's a great summary.
Specifically with regard to deontology, it also makes the problem of consequentialism easier for other people. If I am trying to form a course of action, it is easier for me to plan a high expected value action if I know that everyone will act within the limits of some deontological framework. Yes, a deontological framework reduces the actions I can take in a plan, but it’s consequentially better for me to act deontological so that others can come up with higher expected value plans.
It's worth noting that this is nothing new; photographic prints have been sold for millions, despite them being trivially replicable. In this case, the uniqueness of what counts as the "original" is constrained by legal contracts as opposed to cryptography. In fact, it's not unheard of for an artist to print some number of identical "originals" instead of just one. According to Wikipedia's list of most expensive photographs, the most expensive photo ever sold was Rhein II. This photo has six original editions, of different sizes.
Hmm, I disagree with the "one intuition" way of looking at finances. Yes, you can't drop your expenses by more than 100%, and you can increase your income by more than 100%, but what you really care about is increasing the ratio of income to expenses. In this context, halving your expenses is equivalent to doubling your salary, and if you drop your expenses to zero, that's equivalent to increasing your income to infinity.
Well, I think that the Neural Net and Decision Forest I used in the last post both saw pretty much what you were going for; with the exception that they both put one too many points into CHA, bumping it up to 9, instead of into WIS.
All in all, a success for throwing lots of data into an ML model you don't fully understand and walking away... except that I had two other models which performed abysmally.