The explanation by owencb is what I was trying to address. To be explicit about when the offset is being added, I'm suggesting replacing your log1p(x) ≣ log(1 + x) transformation with log(c + x) for c=10 or c=100.
If the choice of log-dollars is just for presentation, it doesn't matter too much. But in a lesswrong-ish context, log-dollars also have connotations of things like the Kelly criterion, where it is taken completely seriously that there's more of a difference between $0 and $1 than between $1 and $3^^^3.
Given that at least 25% of respondents listed $0 in charity, the offset you add to the charity ($1 if I understand log1p correctly) seems like it could have a large effect on your conclusions. You may want to do some sensitivity checks by raising the offset to, say, $10 or $100 or something else where a respondent might round their giving down to $0 and see if anything changes.
Curtis Yarvin, who looked to Mars for tips and tricks on writing a "tiny, diamond-perfect kernel" for a programming environment.
The Rasch model does not hate truth, nor does it love truth, but the truth if made out of items which it can use for something else.
This seems like a good occasion to quote the twist reveal in Orson Scott Card's Dogwalker:
We stood there in his empty place, his shabby empty hovel that was ten times better than anywhere we ever lived, and Doggy says to me, real quiet, he says, "What was it? What did I do wrong? I thought I was like Hunt, I thought I never made a single mistake in this job. in this one job."
And that was it, right then I knew. Not a week before, not when it would do any good. Right then I finally knew it all, knew what Hunt had done. Jesse Hunt never made mistakes. But he was also so paranoid that he haired his bureau to see if the babysitter stole from him. So even though he would never accidentally enter the wrong P-word, he was just the kind who would do it on purpose. "He doublefingered every time," I says to Dog. "He's so damn careful he does his password wrong the first time every time, and then comes in on his second finger."
"So one time he comes in on the first try, so what?" He says this because he doesn't know computers like I do, being half-glass myself.
"The system knew the pattern, that's what. Jesse H. is so precise he never changed a bit, so when we came in on the first try, that set off alarms. It's my fault, Dog. I knew how crazy paranoidical he is, I knew that something was wrong, but not till this minute I didn't know what it was. I should have known it when I got his password, I should have known. I'm sorry, you never should have gotten me into this, I'm sorry, you should have listened to me when I told you something was wrong. I should have known, I'm sorry."
This seems cool but I have a nagging suspicion that this reduces to greater generality and a handful of sentences if you use conditional expectation of the utility function and the Radon-Nikodym theorem?
Noun phrases that are insufficiently abstract.
echo chambers [...] where meaningless duckspeak is endlessly repeated
Imagine how intolerable NRx would be if it were to acquire one of these. Fortunately, their ideas are too extreme for 4chan, even, so I have no idea where such a forum would be hosted.
Seconding all of gjm's criticisms, and adding another point.
The sostenuto (middle) pedal was invented in 1844. The sustain (right) pedal has been around roughly as long as the piano itself, since piano technique is pretty much unthinkable without it.