Let’s start with one of those insights that are as obvious as they are easy to forget: if you want to master something, you should study the highest achievements of your field.

Even if we assume this, it does not follow that we should try to recreate the subjective conditions that led to (perceived) "success".  The environment is always changing (tech, knowledge base, tools), so many learnings will not apply.  Moreover, biographies tend to create a narrative after the fact, emphasizing the message the writer want to convey. 

I prefer the strategy to master the basics from previous works and then figure out yourself how to innovate and improve the state of the art.

True :) 

(apart for your reply!)

Using the Universal Distribution in the context of the simulation argument makes a lot of sense if we think that the base reality has no intelligent simulators, as it fits with our expectations that a randomly generated simulator is very likely to be coincise. But for human (or any agent-simulators) generated simulations, a more natural prior is how easy is the simulation to be run (Simplicity Assumption), since agent-simulators face concrete tradeoffs in using computational resources, while they have no pressing tradeoffs on the length of the program. 

See here for more info on the latter assumption.

Regarding (D), it has been elaborated more in this paper (The Simplicity Assumption and Some Implications of the Simulation Argument for our Civilization).

I would suggest to remove "I dont think you are calibrated properly about the ideas that are most commonly shared in the LW community. " and present your argument, without speaking for the whole community. 

Very interesting division, thanks for your comment. 

Paraphrasing what you said,  in the informational domain we are very close to post scarcity already (minimal effort to distribute high level education and news globally), while in the material and human attention domain we likely still need advancements in robotics and AI to scale.

You mean the edit functionality of Gitlab? 

Thanks for the gitbook tip, I will look into it.

Yes, the code is open source: https://gitlab.com/postscarcity/map

Interesting paradox. 

As other commented, I see multiple flaws:

1. We believe to seem to know that there is a reality that exists. I doubt we can conceive reality, but only a vague understanding of it. Moreover we have no experience of "not existing", so it's hard to argue that we have a strong grasp on deeply understanding that there is a reality that exists.
2. Biggest issue is here imho  (this is a very common misunderstanding): math is just a tool which we use to describe our universe, it is not (unless you take some approach like the mathematical universe) our universe. The fact that it works well is selection bias. We use math that works well to describe our universe, we discard the rest (see e.g. negative solution to the equation of motion in newtonian mechanics). Math by itself is infinite, we just use a small subset to describe our universe.  Also we take insipiration from our universe to build math.