If that's the case, that seems like a huge hole in your argument/concern. But from statistics taken for the US, it looks like AAPIs get oropharynx cancers at a significantly lower rate than both non-Hispanic Whites and general population both, despite a possibly-higher rate of smoking (for cultural reasons) and a definitely-much-higher rate of defective ALDH polymorphisms.

To make no choice is to make a choice, and to take no action is to take an action. I'd ask the flip side of Lao Mein here - how confident are you, exactly, that your current state of affairs is all that great in an absolute sense, and what are you willing to risk a small chance of in exchange for clear benefits now and in future?

Nuke might miss the moon

• and fall back to earth, where it would detonate, because of the planned design which would explode upon impact
  • in the USSR
  • in the non-USSR (causing international incident)

• and circle sadly around the sun forever

• and circle gleefully about the Earth-Moon Langrange points, wandering around the Earth's Hill sphere, causing consternation for years

I am an Asian ~30yo man (ethnically Korean, specifically) who has suffered from bad cavities all his life and who also suffers from Asian glow to the point of it being uncomfortable to drink; I am also planning to get the Lumina treatment. I do not think that the amount of alcohol produced is particularly relevant; I drink occasionally and eat a ton of fruit, and thus I think that my marginal risk is basically negligible.

I don't smoke, and to the best of my knowledge, I have no particular family history of cancer, let alone oral/esophageal cancer, despite high rates of smoking in my family history.

As such, I'm pretty sure that the expected value calculation is overdetermined towards "get the Lumina", given how unpleasant caries and carie treatment are for me and the (weak but maybe real?) connection between caries and Alzheimer's. Given a choice of damnations, I think I'd prefer oral cancer to Alzheimer's even with ~identical proportional changes in likelihood; given how dubious I am on the marginal risk of oral cancers to start with, I'm only that much more set on fixing my oral microbiome.

If anyone wants me to take measurements or keep data or logs of observations, please let me know.

Adam:

You could argue a similar thing about lawyers, that prosecutors and defense lawyers speak the same jargon and have more of a repeated game going than citizens they represent. And yet we have a system that mostly works.

Yud:

Lawyers combined cannot casually exterminate nonlawyers.

Adam:
 ...

Uh... what? If we stretch the definition of "lawyer" a bit to mean "anyone who carries out, enforces, or whose livelihood primarily depends on the law" - that is, we include government agents, cops, soldiers, and so on... yes they absolutely totally can? (In the same sense that anyone can drench their own house with gasoline and burn it down.) But maybe that's only a weird tangent - although I'd argue that some of the power dynamics that fall out of that are likely disquietingly similar.

Gonna put a few more recommendations here, given that I seem to have broadly overlapping puzzle taste (especially Stephen's Sausage Roll, which I even got to beta test!):

Clearly in the same vein: Antichamber, English Country Tune

Less clearly in the same vein for various reasons but still very very good: Return of the Obra Dinn (ish), Contradiction (the FMV game, less good), Gorogoa (very weird, not quite complete information, stylistically gorgeous)

If you thought this was too hard or too technical or too weird, I recommend that you take a look at https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Een2oqjZe6Gtx6hrj/an-elementary-introduction-to-infra-bayesianism , which is intended as a companion piece to mine for those with less in the way of mathematical chops, or who'd simply rather have a less technical overview.

That sounds like it also works. I've seen the proof both ways and I think I was mixing them together in my head.

The number of such sets is specifically uncountable. Each set is of itself countable. Apologies, I'll fix the OP.

This seems correct. I'll add it to the list of fixes.