All of pranomostro's Comments + Replies

Recommendation Features on LessWrong

Just some quick feedback on the "Continue Reading" feature: At the moment, when I read a post in the middle of a sequence, the next recommended post is at the beginning of the sequence, but I would like it to be the post after the last one I read in the sequence. Perhaps this is intentional, but I wouldn't use the feature that way, since I already try to read the posts in sequence (sometimes without being logged in).

5jimrandomh3yIt's ambiguous whether to recommend the first unread post or the next post after the last read, and I suspect neither answer will satisfy everyone. You can at least click through to the sequence table of contents, and go from there, though.
5habryka3yI prefer the current setup, mostly because I often discover sequences by just reading posts in the recommendations that then turn to have been part of a sequence I want to read, for which I then want to start at the beginning (and I expect this will be particularly the case with posts from R:A-Z for most users). Will think about whether there is a way to get the best of both worlds.
Ask LW: Have you read Yudkowsky's AI to Zombie book?

I am currently reading it, currently in the Quantum Physics sequence. I read it all here on LessWrong, I did not buy or read the book version. I sometimes skim through the comments a bit, but sadly, the threads have been unraveled a bit and it is hard to follow a conversation. I don't remember any specific occasion where the comments enlightened me in a new way, though they are sometimes interesting. I doubt it is necessary to read them, though.

The tech left behind

Plan 9 from Bell Labs comes to my mind (papers & manpages): By the creators of unix, tight integration of networks (better than other systems I have seen so far), UTF-8 all the way down, interesting concept with process-wide inherited namespaces.

It used up way too many weirdness points, though, and was fighting the old Worse is Better fight. It lost, and we are left with ugly and crufty unices today.

Another one that comes to mind is Project Xanadu. It was quite similar to the modern web, but a lot more polished and clean in design and concept. It proba... (read more)

2A Ray1y+1 Plan 9. I think it (weirdly) especially hits a strange place with the "forgotten" mark, in that pieces of it keep getting rediscovered (sometimes multiple times). I got to work w/ some of the Plan 9 folks, and they would point out (with citations) when highly regarded papers in OSDI had been built (and published) in Plan 9, sometimes 10-20 years prior. One form of this "forgotten" tech is tech that we keep forgetting and rediscovering, but: 1. maybe this isn't the type of forget the original question is about, and 2. possibly academia itself is incentivizing this (since instead of only getting one paper out of a good idea, if it can get re-used, then that's good for grad students / labs that need publications)
Sages in singularity

You were downvoted, but I think somebody should try to explain exactly why.

Both the idea and the terminology for "sages" is highly questionable. It evokes the idea of mysterious answers and to arguments from authority which are exactly what we would want to avoid.

Could you maybe clarify a bit more what you mean by the word "sage"? It seems like you conflate people who want to solve problems and win with people who want deep insights into the nature of meaning.

1ArthurLidia3yI meant in a way that with the progress of more artificial intelligence (Demis Hassabis genuinely belives the fact we can solve all problems of philosophy with intelligence only and no experience). This short post should have stayed a draft so I am sorry for that.
Conditional Independence, and Naive Bayes

Possible (?) typo: "V is "Two arms and ten digits"" could indeed be meant as "V is "Two arms and ten fingers""

Nevermind, didn't know digits was another word for fingers.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
Productivity: Instrumental Rationality

I started tracking my productivity at the beginning of this month, writing a "master plan" in order to know at each moment exactly what I should do next (okay, not "exactly" exactly, but good enough for it to in theory fill more than one day).

I realized how bad it is. Which is excellent.

I'm not sure how much to include in the plan. At the moment it is so big that if I had ultimate self-restraint and would waste not one minute of the day, I would barely get it done. It seems like that's okay, since I have sorted the activities ... (read more)

1bfinn3yHaving at least a plan for when to work, and being strict about that, works for me. I set alarms on my phone to work in 1 hour focussed bursts, with 15 minute breaks in between, all morning and late afternoon - it seems most people do their best focussed work in the morning; there's also that famous violin/piano student research which indicates that the best students also practice late afternoon. I reserve early/mid afternoon for light work (admin etc.) In addition, I suggest you have a general plan for which projects to work on during a week & month, and make a daily more specific (though not necessarily detailed) plan first thing in the morning, or (better) at the end of the work day for the next day.
12 Virtues of Rationality posters/icons

Pretty cool. I like the aleph for scholarship.

Two things:

  • It looks like evenness is missing from your post
  • I would represent the void with empty space as well, but add the caption "THE VOID" underneath
3habryka4yOops, fixed the missing evenness poster!