All of murat's Comments + Replies

Insufficiently Awesome

What are some of the emotions associated with rationality?

0NancyLebovitz11yCuriosity. Frustration. Delight. They cycle.
How to Be Happy

So what happened after that? Did your technique stop working?

Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2

I have not seen the original post, but can't someone simply post it somewhere else? Is deleting it from here really a solution (assuming there's real danger)? BTW, I can't really see how a post on a board can be dangerous in a way implied here.

0thomblake11ySadly, those who saw the original post have declined to share.
5AngryParsley11yThe likely explanation is that people who read the article agreed it was dangerous. If some of them had decided the censorship was unjustified, LW might look like Digg after the AACS key controversy [] .
Open Thread: July 2010

I have a few questions.

1) What's "Bayescraft"? I don't recall seeing this word elsewhere. I haven't seen a definition on LW wiki either.

2) Why do some people capitalize some words here? Like "Traditional Rationality" and whatnot.

3Nisan11yCapitalized words are often technical terms. So "Traditional Rationality" [] refers to certain epistemic attitudes and methods which have, in the past, been called "rational" (a word which is several hundred years old). This frees up the lower-case word "rationality" [], which on this site is also a technical term.
5Morendil11yTo me "Bayescraft" has the connotation of a particular mental attitude, one inspired by Eliezer Yudkowsky's fusion of the ev-psych, heuristics-and-biases literature with E.T. Jaynes' idiosyncratic take on "Bayesian probabilistic inference", and in particular the desiderata for an inference robot: take all relevant evidence into account, rather than filter evidence according to your ideological biases, and allow your judgement of a proposition's plausibility to move freely in the [0..1] range rather than seek all-or-nothing certainty in your belief.
1Oscar_Cunningham11yBayescraft is just a synonym for Rationallity, with connotations of a) Bayes theorem, since that's what epistemic rationallity must be based on, and b) the notion that rationallity is a skill which must be developed personally and as a group (see also: Martial art of Rationallity (oh look, more capitals!)) The capitals are just for emphasis of concepts that the writer thinks are fundamentally important.
Open Thread: March 2010, part 3

Thank you for the links. It makes sense now.

Open Thread: March 2010, part 3

How do Bayesians look at formal proofs in formal specifications? Do they believe "100%" in them?

7ata12yYou can believe that it leads to a 100%-always-true-in-every-possible-universe conclusion, but the strength of your belief should not be 100% itself. The difference is crucial. Good posts on this subject are How To Convince Me That 2 + 2 = 3 [] and Infinite Certainty []. (The followup, 0 And 1 Are Not Probabilities [], is a worthwhile explanation of the mathematical reasons that this is the case.)
Open Thread: March 2010, part 2

Maybe you are scared because you are aware that writing maintainable code is harder than writing code without that constraint?

3cousin_it12yI write maintainable code anyway, and I'm friends with several people who maintain my past code and don't seem to complain. No, working at BigCo scares me because it tends to be a very one-sided activity. Employees at small companies and contractors face much more variety in what they have to do every day.