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:
34 (50%), or 5 (5%) to 94 (95%)
This is based on https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1234589598652784642 , 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.
4 ish (which I'm treating as 2 (5%) to 7 (95%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_data/WHO_situation_reports is how I'm get...
Here's my bay area hospital capacity model: https://www.getguesstimate.com/models/15278
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).
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
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.
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...
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.
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?
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 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.
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?
(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...
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...
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.
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.
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...
Ahh. That does seem like it might work.
Ineffectual only if Quirrell helps, right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Washington DC RSVP thread:
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!
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.
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.
What in this post merrited downvoting without explaining?
(This was at -1 when I found it)
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...
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.
Planecrash has 307 images at the time I made this comment, for context.