Randy_M

working for my cheap mobile phone, not for my new laptop with IE. Which is a shame, because it's a very good post, but I'm going to be way behind to contribute to any comment threads.

edit: Shame for me, I mean, not for the observer concerne with signal to noise ratio.

You can't justify a point, but you could justify a range by speficfying temperatures where it becomes uncomforable. Actually, specifying a range is just specifying the give point with less resolution.

In what way is "deserve" a matter of fact?

Depending on the outcome specificied and the type of feelings attended to, of course.

Youtube + "econstories". :) (Preferably not just that, but it's good and if you haven't seen it you should.)

Everyone knows utilitarians are more likely to break rules.

(This is mostly a joke based on the misspelling. I know a sophisticated utilitarianism would consider the effect of widespread lawbreaking and not necessarily break laws so much as to be overrepresented in prison)

I guess if you read it loosely. I think the official LW position would be (correct me if I am wrong) an em of kokotajlod that has high enough fidelity to replicate his decision making process is him; what he is is a particular set of hueristics, instincts, etc, that accompany his body but could theoretically exist outside it. That does match his statement if one reads it as refering to something more like a platonic concept than a spiritual essence.

Horrified we allowed wildlife to go on? What alternative do you propose?

Personally I find usually more interesting material in the open threads than the discussion area or the main. I take this to mean I am at least somewhat outside of the core target audience of the site.

I don't think he was jumping to malice, rather delusion or bias.

Again, provided we are comfortable with disparate impact and all.

I thought the research was that liberals didn't have purity axis of morality (Haidt, is it?).

A little water holds a lot of heat, comparitively.

In other words, he didn't think your comment added much to his original.

Google only turns up "About 915,000,000 results" for anti-science.

Well, assuming you mean "ai in an undiscernable facsimile of a human body" then maybe that's so, and if so, it is probably a less blatant but equally final existential risk.

I think spending thousands on magic is the land of diminishing returns. Though, if he has a local game store, he could draft every week for $500/year, and that includes both the social experience and the cards.

That is good evidence, but I'd disbelieve its reliability a bit because it is so funny. Like obese dieticians, or non-rich investment brokers, or divorced marriage counselors.

Driving is just something humans happen to be competent at.

I don't think it is pure chance, since it was designed in iterations around human capabilites.

Do you actually say you "study the singularity" or give a more in depth explanation? I ask because the word study is usually used only in reference to things that do or have exisited, rather than to speculative future events.