People have thought about it but I also don't know of anything extensive being written.  Counting discretely if a consciousnesses "exists once" or "exists twice" don't seem like the right take to me.  What happens if you cut the circuits in your CPU into 10 pieces that each do the same computation independently -- do you get 10 times as many conscious beings?  (A possible solution to this puzzle is that the "anthropic measure" of a computation has a multiplicative factor by the number of bits the computation erases, which would mean that reversible computers aren't conscious)

[EDIT] I'll mention that reversible computations, even if not part of a quantum computer, are quantumly weird.  We're not sure about much about anthropics, but one thing we are confident in is the Born rule.  Whatever your interpretation of quantum mechanics is, it probably involves decoherence.  And reversible computations don't decohere.

My bigger point is I think people are doing this:

• Assessing, correctly, that the people now in charge of US vaccine policy are wrong, obviously wrong, pointlessly wrong, and causing grave harm from their wrongness.
• Conflating, incorrectly, the magnitude of infuriating wrongness for magnitude of harm.

Matthew Yglesias wrote an article about how vaccine policy is the most shocking thing Trump has done.  If you go by gut feel, that might seem like a reasonable guess.  If you go by math, I don't think it's close to passing a fermi estimate^[1].
 

1. ^{^}

   Addressing your comment: yes, the US population is twice as high now as in the 1950s, and that's a good point.  But the case fatality rate for diseases like measles is >2 times lower in 2026 hospitals than 1950's hospitals (1950s hospitals had few ventilators).  City densities have not increased since the 1950s (we are more suburban), but doesn't matter for measles because it's R_0 is too high and ≈nobody escaped measles in the 1950s even in rural areas.  If we ignore all of that and say at 90% vaccination 2,000 people die per year, 4 times as many as in the 1950s with 0% vaccination, that's still less than one tenth the impact of smoking public health policy changes in the 1990s.  I don't guarantee I'm correct on all math and facts here but I think it's overdetermined.

In the 1950s, with 0% vaccination rate, measles caused about 400-500 deaths per year in the US.  Flu causes are about 20,000 deaths per year in the US, and smoking perhaps 200,000.  If US measles vaccination rates fell to 90%, and we had 100-200 deaths per year, that would be pointless and stupid, but for public health effects the anti-smoking political controversies of the 1990s were >10 times more impactful.

I think your analysis is incorrect

Well, it's kinda true, right?  Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (developing embryos look like worms, then fish, amphibians -- they mirror the path of evolution).  That's because it's easier for evolution to add steps at the end than to changes steps in the beginning.  It happens with computers too -- modern Intel and AMD chips still startup in 16 bit real mode.

In the coalition of genes that make it into a gamete, newer genes support the old genes, but not vice versa.  The genes that control apoptosis (p53 etc.) are obligate mutualists -- apoptosis genes support older particular genes, but older genes don't support apoptosis genes in particular.

 

A: It's bizarre that "open" would be the opposite of "closed" everywhere except this one term.

The protest of topology students everywhere.

It amuses me that ElectionBettingOdds.com is still operational and still owned by FTX Trading Ltd.

I think it is similar to option 4 or 6?

Yep!  With the addendum that I'm also limiting the utility function by the same sorts of bounds.  Eliezer in Pascal's Muggle (as I interpret him, though I'm putting words in his mouth) was willing to bound agents subjective probabilities, but was not willing to bound agents utility functions.

Why is seconds the relevant unit of measure here?

The real unit is "how many bits of evidence you have seen/computed in your life".  The number of seconds you've lived is just something proportional to that -- the Big Omega notation fudges away proportionality constant.

TLDR Kelly bets are risk avoidant.  I think Kelly bets prevent you from pouring all your money into a pascal-mugging change of winning ungodly sums of money, but Kelly bets will pay a mugger exorbitant blackmail to avoid a pascal-mugging chance losing even a realistic amount money
---------
Starting with a pedantic point.  None of the Pascal Mugging situations we've talked about are true Kelly bets.  The mugger is not offering to multiply your cash bet if you win.  Your winnings are saved lives, and they cannot be converted into a payroll.

But we can still translate a Pascal's mugging into the language of a Kelly bet.  A translation of the standard Pascal mugging might be: the mugger offers to googolplex-le your money^[1], and you think he has a one in a trillion chance of telling the truth.  A Kelly bet would say that despite these magnificent EV of the payouts, you should put only ≈a trillionth of your wealth into this bet.  So in this case, the one like the original Pascal's mugging, the one you responded to, the Kelly bet does the "right" thing and doesn't pay the mugger.

But now suppose the Pascal mugger says "I am a jealous god.  If you don't show your belief in Me by paying Me $90,000 (90% of your wealth), I will send you and a googolplex other people to hell and take all (or all but a googolplexth) of your wealth".  And suppose you think that there's a 1 in 1 trillion chance he's telling the truth.

Can we translate this into a Kelly bet?  Yes! (I think?)  The Kelly criteria tells you how to allocate your portfolio among many assets.  Normally we assume there's a "safe" asset, a "null" asset, one where you are sure to get exactly you money back (the asset into which you put most of your portfolio when you make a small bet).  But that asset is optional.  We can model this Kelly bet by saying there are two assets into which you can allocate your portfolio.  Asset A's payoff is "return 10% (loses 90%) of the bet with certainty".  Asset B's payoff is "with probability 999,999,999,999/1 trillion (almost 1), return your money even, but with chance 1 in 1 trillion, lose ≈everything".  There is no "safe cash" option -- you must split your portfolio between assets A and B.

Here, Kelly criterion really, really hates losing ≈all your bankroll.  It says to put almost everything into the safe asset A (pay the mugger), because even a 1 in 1 trillion chance of losing ≈everything isn't worth it.  Log of ≈0 (lost almost everything) is a very negative number.

Perhaps it would be useful to write exact math out.

1. ^{^}

   Importantly, I think for the math to work out he has to be offering a payoff proportional to your bet, not a fixed payoff?

Suppose the mugger says that if you don't give him $5, he'll take away 99.999999999999999% of your wealth.  I don't think Kelly bets save you there?  The logarithms of Kelly bets help you on the positive side but hurt you on the negative side.