All of rocurley's Comments + Replies

Planecrash has 307 images at the time I made this comment, for context.

If you don't want to bother using the glowfic downloader yourself, here's the epub so far. My intention is to update it every day, but no guarantees.

I'm also very interested in this. Here are some numbers I've been using:

  • Ratio of confirmed to unconfirmed cases (USA):

34 (50%), or 5 (5%) to 94 (95%)

This is based on , which estimated the true number of coronavirus cases in Seattle (as of 2020-03-01). I divided that by the number of confirmed cases in Seattle at that time.

  • Doubling time (USA):

4 ish (which I'm treating as 2 (5%) to 7 (95%).–20_coronavirus_outbreak_data/WHO_situation_reports is how I'm get

... (read more)
South China Morning Post had a story line a day or so back where Chinese experts were suggesting a 10 fold increase every 19 days. Interestingly the rate seems to be about double that if you look at the last 19 days. I did not look past the totals but suspect that is highly dominated by South Korea (seems to be slowing), Italy and Iran (these two do not seem to be slowing). Might also be interesting to put a latitude metric in as well -- while I have a "sense" that more equatorial areas have a lower incident (and may be spread rate) I've not seen that data plotted anywhere.

Here's a guesstimate model I made to try and figure out when hospitals will become overwhelmed. Lots of model uncertainty here that I'd appreciate advice on, but the current prediction is that there will be a hospital bed for you if you get infected in the bay area within the next 6 days (95% confidence within the model: actual confidence is much lower).

I'm super happy to see quantitative models, but moving this to comments because it doesn't cash out into specific advice.

That's correct: anybody can give a talk, and unprepared talks are explicitly welcome.

Japanese kids going on their first errand, as discussed at the meetup: search for Hajimeteno Otsukai

Oh no, sorry!

It's no big deal; I've put weird test things on the site myself plenty of times.

I can help! Go to this url:

And hit the send button. I'm just a normal user so I can't delete your post, but this is the api command to do that.

Please note that this moved!

For those of you still waiting, got an email to the effect of: We did it, sorry it took so long, it'll be uploaded in 3 weeks. Also they said that more than half were not yet done.

I received a similar email and was able to download my genome file a few days ago. The file is 23andMe format output by Plink. It was text even though it had a .gz suffix. I had trouble uploading the file to Promethease, but was able to get it working by changing the header to one copied from an actual 23andMe file and removing the missing (--) SNPs. Unfortunately, despite being ~125MB (~5x the size of an example 23andMe file I have) my file is missing many of the 23andMe SNPs (7948 genotypes annotated in Promethease vs. 20k+ for the 23andMe example). I have an email in to BGI requesting additional information. For example, Promethease directly supports the dbSNPAnnotated.bz2 Complete Genomics file and I was hoping to get a copy of that file for my data. Have you had any success analyzing your results? Would anyone be interested in starting a discussion group for analyzing our BGI results?
What is 'it' here, just your particular raw SNP results and not news about any hits of reaching genome-wide statistical-significance?

Every 3rd meetup is board games: there's generally dominion, Zendo fairly common, and often one "long" game going on sort of on the side.

I think I'm probably missing some common games that I don't pick as much...

I sort of understand Zendo but what's the point of playing dominion at a LW meetup?

Not sure I've got a good source for you, but if you use the Rayleigh criterion you get that you can just about make out earth-sized objects using visible light at 4 ly. You could use much higher energy photons (better resolution from lower wavelength), but this gives you other problems. Anything beyond visible light won't make it through the atmosphere (1 km is a BIG thing to put into space), and x and gamma rays are really hard to build optics for.

Yeah, if you want to build a space telescope 1km in diameter, you'd better build it out of local materials.

Scott just responded here, with a number of points relevant to the topic of rationalist communities.

I would assume there was supposed to be a link there?

Link here [].

I'm the guy who posts the DC meetups. While I'm sympathetic to the problem, I'm not sure what I can do to help, aside from not posting meetups at all (not really an option). Pressuring me won't help you if I can't do anything.

I'm doing this (Shannon's Demon). So far it's profitable, although I think I've taken on more risk premium than investing 50% BTC 50% USD and not balancing.

I made a similar mistake, and randomly generated defect.


I think accidentally choosing defect is probably the best possible outcome in PD; you get all the advantages of defecting, whilst your decision process still acausally causes other people to cooperate.

I don't think that the service gets more expensive under a second price auction (which Choron uses). If you bid $10 and I bid $100, normally it would go to you for $100. In the randomized case, it might go to me for $100.

I think I agree with you about the possibility of harm in the 2 person case.

Oh yes, that's right. I think I initially misunderstood the rules of the second price - I thought it would be $10 to me or $100 to you , randomly chosen.

To be sure I'm following you: If the 2nd bidder gets it (for the same price as the first bidder), the market efficiency is lost because the 2nd person is indifferent between winning and not, while the first would have liked to win it? If so, I think that's right.

If there are two players... I agree the first bidder is worse off than they would be if they had won. This seems like a special case of the above though: why is it more broken with 2 players?

Yes, that's one of the inefficiencies. The other inefficiency is that whenever the 2nd player wins, the service gets more expensive. Because of the fact that the service gets more expensive. When there are multiple players, this might not seem like such a big deal - sure, you might pay more than the cheapest possible price, but you are still ultimately all benefiting (even if you aren't maximally benefiting). Small market inefficiencies are tolerable. It's not so bad with 3 players who bid 20, 30, 40, since even if the 30-bidder wins, the other two players only have to pay 15 each. It's still inefficient, but it's not worse than no trade. However, when your economy consists of two people, market inefficiency is felt more keenly. Consider the example I gave earlier once more: I bid 30. You bid 40. So I can sell you my service for $30-$40, and we both benefit. . But wait! The coin flip makes you win the auction. So now I have to pay you $40. My stated preference is that I would not be willing to pay more than $30 for this service. But I am forced to do so. The market inefficiency has not merely resulted in a sub-optimal outcome - it's actually worse than if I had not traded at all! Edit: What's worse is that you can name any price. So suppose it's just us two, I bid $10 and you bid $100, and it goes to the second bidder...

(I'm one of the other users/devs of Choron)

There are two ways I know of that the market can try to defeat bid sniping, and one way a bidder can (that I know of).

Our system does not display the lowest bid, only the second lowest bid. For a one-shot auction where you had poor information about the others preferences, this would solve bid sniping. However, in our case, chores come up multiple times, and I'm pretty sure that it's public knowledge how much I bid on shopping, for example.

If you're in a situation where the lowest bid is hidden, but your bidding i... (read more)

And market efficiency. Plus, I think it doesn't work when there are only two players? If I honestly bid $30, and you bid $40 and randomly get awarded the auction, then I have to pay you $40. And that leaves me at -$10 disutility, since the task was only -$30 to me.

So, let's say you want a scoring rule with two properties.

You want it to be local: that is to say, all that matters is the probability you assigned to the actual outcome. This is in contrast to rules like the quadratic scoring rule, where your score is different depending on how the outcomes that didn't happen are grouped. Based on this assumption, I'm going to write the scoring rule as S(p), where S(p) is the score you get when you assign a probability p to the true outcome.

You also want it to play nicely with combining separate events. That is to say, if... (read more)

Sorry you can't make it out to DC. AFAIK there's no baltimore meetup. However! We've had people come from baltimore before. I'll forward this to the DC list and see if anyone from there is free.

Actually, it seems the convention ends relatively early on Sunday, so I might be able to make it after all (it's, what, a one hour train ride between cities?). Then again, I might not. I note that you seem to be the organizer for the DC meetups going by your post history. Is it permissible to maybe-show-maybe-not-who-knows? By all means forward it to the DC list, and thanks. Given the apparent popularity of anime around here, I would be surprised if no one on it was planning on being at the con themselves.

If you're considering opening a baby farm, not opening the baby farm doesn't mean the babies get to live fulfilling lives: it means they don't get to exist, so that point is moot.

If you view human potential as valuable then you end up saying something like that people should maximise that via breeding up to whatever the resource boundary is for meaningful human life. Unless that is implicitly bound - which I think to be a reasonable assumption to make for most people's likely world views.

Well, several of the universal constants arguably define our units. For every base type of physical quantity (things like distance, time, temperature, and mass, but not, for example, speed, which can be constructed out of distance and time), you can set a physical constant to 1 if you're willing to change how you measure that property. For example, you can express distance in terms of time (measuring distance in light-seconds or light-years). By doing so, you can discard the speed of light: set it to 1. Speeds are now ratios of time to time: something movi... (read more)

First not: I'm not disagreeing with you so much as just giving more information. This might buy you a few bits (and lots of high energy physics is done this way, with powers of electronvolts the only units here []). But there will still be free variables that need to be set. Wikipedia [] claims (with a citation to this [] John Baez post) that there are 26 fundamental dimensionless physical constants. These, as far as we know right now, have to be hard coded in somewhere, maybe in units, maybe in equations, but somewhere.
For that matter, if Harry thought to try it in violation of most of the safety lecture, he might have better treated her. It depends on how much accurate biochemistry Harry knows- and what happens when CO2 transfigured into oxygen which burns more carbon refigures in the bloodstream. Although Harry has demonstrated the ability to sustain long transfigurations, I would say that it's reasonable that he thinks his medical supplies are more likely to work than experimental medical magic.
Harry can do partial transfiguration.

Not quite sure what you're asking: I haven't read either, so I don't really have anything to say about the two?

I've been meaning to read Causality for a long time now: I'd be interested.

Do you have any views on edition 1 vs edition 2? My library doesn't have ed 2 so I'm wondering whether the differences are important.

Is the problem that in his hypothetical, his point of view is more in-line with what you would expect from a Lesswrong member, or what?

That's what two-boxers do.

Two boxers don't only do wrong things, and it's not obvious this is actually related to two-boxing.

Two-boxers live in a should-universe, given how they insist on following "logic" over evidence.

Yes, but if I'm reading this right, the payoff matrix is different from the PD. If two large vehicles collide, it's about as bad as two small vehicles colliding. This means that if everyone drove a huge truck, safety would be improved overall (trees won't get bigger to match, and no one cares about their safety). If all you care about is safety, the optimal situation is everyone in a large vehicle.

but you have to offset by QUALY's you could have bought with the extra gas money.

No, I didn't. It's fixed now, thanks.

I agree that it's at least quite plausible (as per your post, it's not proven to follow from GR) that if the universe spun around you, it might be exactly the same as if you were spinning. However, if there's no background at all, then I'm pretty sure the predictions of GR are unambiguous. If there's no preferred rotation, then what do you predict to happen when you spin newton's bucket at different rates relative to each other?

EDIT: Also, although now I'm getting a bit out of my league, I believe that even in the massive external rotating shell case, the effect is miniscule.

EDIT 2: See this comment.

Are you sure you linked the right comment? That's just someone talking about centripetal vs centrifugal.

I think the center of mass thing is a bit of a red herring here. While velocity and position are all relative, rotation is absolute. You can determine if you're spinning without reference to the outside world. For example, imagine a space station you spin for "gravity". You can tell how fast it's spinning without looking outside by measuring how much gravity there is.

You can work in earth-stationary coordinates, there will just be some annoying odd terms in your math as a result (it's a non-inertial reference frame).

Technically, no you can't. Per EY's points on Mach's principle [], spinning yourself around (with the resulting apparent movement of stars and feeling of centrifugal stresses) is observationally equivalent to the rest of the universe conspiring to rotate around you oppositely. The c.g. of the earth/sun solar system would likewise lack a privileged position in such a world.

I realize this imposes some costs on you, but I'd recommend that you just say you're going to be at a place and time with a sign, and that people should come. This avoids the whole "I'm not sure I should come because everyone else might not come because they're not sure..." cycle.

You might want to choose the date/time based on feedback here, but honestly I've had a lot of trouble scheduling meetups based on feedback about time, and I eventually just started dictating meetup times.

DC group: %25 of regular attendees.

Me! Also, you. (80%) (Don't double count)

I'm Maia's +1, so don't count me again. I was wondering if there will be a place to crash: I can sleep on a floor no problem, if someone has one to offer.

Thanks for organizing this, by the way: I'm really looking forward to it!

Important Note: If you want to attend, but there are any logistical issues keeping you from coming (gas money, specific housing needs, etc), please let me know! I may be able to provide a solution, and I don't want someone missing out because they didn't ask! Quick answer: Crash space will be available on a first come, first serve basis. Being willing to sleep on the floor pretty much guarantees you a spot. Long answer: We're not far enough into planning yet to know exactly what the housing situation will be. I think it would be awesome to have everybody able to stay at the same place if I can find affordable weekend accommodations near our lecture site(s), but more likely each of our group members will be able to host a couple people each.

That's the only real question - utilitarian decision making takes care of the rest.

This doesn't seem like a very charitable response, akin to replying "just do what you want". He's trying to figure out what he wants, and is asking for help in figuring this out.

And ThrustVectoring asked a pertinent question to help him figure it out.

Maia and I have been working on a chore market for our house, and we just started using it. People bid how much they want to be paid (in points) to do a chore, and when the auction closes everyone is taxed to pay for it. If you go into debt, you're forced to bid on chores. This is the closest thing to a "major software project" I've ever done, so it's pretty nice to see my baby actually sort of working.

It's on Github if you're interested, but it's pretty buggy at the moment and not well documented, so user beware.

Q. [any problem whatsoever] A. THE MARKET WILL PROVIDE! It's worth a try, and if it works then excellent :-) But I suspect the sharehouse problem is not a problem of mechanism. IME, all I've found to work is every person personally considering household chores their own problem. (Approximately: If you all feel you're doing 1/N + 20% of the work, it's probably about even.) If even one doesn't, things get crappy and someone suggests a mechanism. Bogged-down household resentment ensues and it all goes a bit Strategy of Conflict []. (Some of the housemates I've had, the friendly AI would choose "nuke from orbit" as the only reasonable answer.) It strikes me as quite likely that I am speaking through personal post-sharehouse stress disorder. Further reading: John Birmingham. 1 [] 2 []. The standard texts on the subject. Australia in the '80s and '90s, when the system really did love you and want to be your friend.

What in this post merrited downvoting without explaining?

(This was at -1 when I found it)

Probably because it's thinking is sufficiently far away from standard Less Wrong computationalism as to seem stupid to someone.

Alright, I'll take a crack at this. I haven't read the comments, so likely (I hope?) there's a lot of duplicate information here.

1: When does the atom align itself?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, so let me know if I misinterpreted the question. Consider a single electron. Think of the wavefunction as the product of the spin wavefunction (which is representable as some linear combination of spin up and spin down), and the position-space wavefunction (which is probably a pretty tight gaussian wavepacket). This goes propagating along happily until it... (read more)

Your MWI analysis is close to the mark. One thing that is not quite right is multiple states inside each term. Note that once an atom interacts with the screen, it no longer has a definite spin or even position. It becomes a part of the blob on screen, entangled with the atoms around it. Thus the interaction is better described as blank screen(Awave packet moving forward and upatom spin up + Bwave packet moving forward and downatom spin down) -> Ascreen with top mark + Bscreen with bottom mark. The atom state is buried somewhere inside the mark on screen. The observer's interaction with the screen is similarly simplified: You(Ascreen with top mark + Bscreen with bottom mark) -> AYou-topscreen with top mark+BYou-bottom*screen with bottom mark. Note that you still have to apply the Born rule to calculate the prior probabilities of You becoming You-top and You-bottom. * any potential double entendre is completely accidental.

You're right about U1 being negative: I meant to say |U|>|U1|, unless they're both 0.

If you only compare situations with the same a and b values to each other, then yes, the models do yield the same results, but it seems that comparing situations with varying a and b is relevant.

I agree that U1 means something different in each model, and you can of course choose values of U1 such that you force the predictions of one model to agree with the other. I prefer to define U1 as just your selfish desires because that way, only the empathy coefficients change when the people you're associated with change: you don't have to change your utilities on every single action.

So you want to compare my model with one set of values for (a,b) to your model with another set of values, then say they're different?
Load More