All of taryneast's Comments + Replies

People guess the meanings of words and notations from context all the time. Especially when they aren't specialists in the field in question. Lots of interested amateurs exist and read things without the benefit of years of training before hand.

Some things just lend themselves more easily to guessing the accepted-meaning than others. It is often a good idea to make things easier to guess the accepted-meaning, rather than to fail to do so, if at all possible. Make it hard to fail.

I've learned a lot about interacting with adults by reading parenting books :D

I'll add one: don't ask if you won't accept a no 
If you're requiring your child to do a task, and it's not actually acceptable to you for them not to do the task - then don't phrase it as a question eg "would you like to clean your room now?"
If they say no and then you make them do it anyway - you're teaching them that their preferences aren't respected.
I think we do the question thing to try to make the request feel more "polite", but it actually backfires in the long-term.
If no isn't really an option, phrase it differently "It's time to clean up you... (read more)

My working assumption is that the Flynn effect is mostly to do with improving the average eg by improved nutrition and wellness due to higher availability of food and health care. We're seeing improvements in the average because we're lifting up the bottom quartile, not the top.

But I think the performance on IQ tests for people at the top have been going up, at least until recently.  It could be, however, that you are right and the increase in IQ test performance reflects real gains in intelligence for those in the bottom, but fake "just getting better at taking tests because of repeated exposure to tests" gains for everyone else.

Any updates on how well you think this worked, especially as compared with other vaccines now available?
Edit: never mind, I see the followup post now :D

So... did this eventuate? What were your learnings? Is it still going?

"finishing school" for rationalists... :)

Googling briefly...

You get yourself private health insurance here. Unlike the USA where employers tend to pay for it... it is normal and expected that ordinary private individuals on normal salaries pay for their own private health insurance.

it is NOWHERE NEAR as expensive as in the USA. I'm currently 41 and pregnant, with some (small) existing issues and I pay around $140 a month for "hospital and extras" cover - which I've used.

For somebody young and willing to have just the bare essenti... (read more)

We have similar compulsory Insurance here in Aus too... it's called "third party insurance" (or your Green slip) You pay it as the same time as you pay your registration. It costs nowhere near that amount, even for new drivers. I currently pay around $600 a year but I'm female and 40 years old. I have not been driving for that many years though.

A quick online google shows me that if I were Male and 23 years old.. the same insurance would cost $890 - even for a driver with 1 year of driving experience.

I spent $5800 on utilities last year... it happens when you live in an area that simultaneously gets below freezing point (and thus you need to spend on heating) and also gets above comfortable living point (and thus you need to spend on fans or air-con). I'm pretty reasonably frugal on both... I don't set the aircon super low, I don't set the heating on high... but utilities are pricey. I also count "internet" as a utility. When I lived in a warmer climate I spent $2800

"Misc house expenses" include things like fixing a broken toilet...... (read more)

So... how did this go? (Note: for all I know I've met you in person... I'm not good with names/pseudonym matching) :D

I'm coming in late to this discussion but... The nearest cryo group will be located in South East Australia... if you have a medical emergency, you'll be evacced to Adelaide - which isn't that far away.

Agreed. My own epiphany of shopping came to me when I realised I could treat shops like art-galleries... containing many beautiful things that I could look at all day - but was under no obligation to actually buy and take home.

I guess you can assume that EN auto-downvotes by X and just adjust the origin down by that amount... eg your comment is at -8 - which (assuming EN downvotes by -10) means it's actually really at +2

I have exactly the same problem because I did an honours-year... which is halfway between a Bachelor's and a Masters.

Are you asking why adversity-to-success stories are so prevalent? in which case it's also partly because we (the ordinary people) want to hear them... because they are stories of hope, especially stories of what we hope for ourselves. Reading about a great success triggers our own feeling of succeeding, in small part.

I did not select that option, but I know people that identify this way. The sorts of people that do vary considerably, from an atheist who believes in ghosts or spirits, to people that believe that we can have telepathic and/or empathic connections and can achieve this through eg meditation etc. People that believe in "magic as a form of willpower making things change in the real world" consider themselves spiritual, but atheist. etc etc.

I think it sometimes just means "I'm an atheist, but I feel a sense of awe when contemplating the Grand Canyon or Maxwell's equations or the way some people sacrifice their lives for others, I don't particularly enjoy being rude about religion, and I find Richard Dawkins a bit annoying".

I really liked things like "option for people who aren't in the US and want an option to choose" plus I think I recall one like "I like clicking on options" :D

You've got a slight lisp there ;)

My garden makes me happy.

Right now the leaves are turning yellow and there's a new, autumnal bite in the air that I find invigorating.

The birds are still visiting, and every now and then I'll feed the king parrots and rosellas seed and watch them twitter at each other, all colourful plumage and huffed-up self-importance. I think they sound like guinea pigs, which always makes me laugh :)

In my experience, people who are not the likely victims of a kind of danger are much less likely to spot the warning signs of that danger than those who are. Women spot potential-rape more frequently, the same way that soldiers that have been stationed in the middle east are more likely to spot potential IEDs - not every discarded thing on the road is an IED, and not every "man roughly handling a women" is a potential rape... but some are... and some women have gotten better at spotting the latter due to either being trained to do so, or having h... (read more)

I completed the survey. I also like the new format - easy to read, good instructions etc.

As explained it doesn't fit the definition given: playing house does not have "definite rules" and does not have a defined beginning/end.

okay, playing house isn't actually a coherent category. there are ways to play house that have carse-jargon-“definite rules” and have a carse-jargon-defined-beginning&end, and there are ways to play house that don't. most instances of playing house are of the former type, likely including your experiences. carse uses words in weird ways.

I thought it was a deliberate technique on the part of scammers to use bad grammar/spelling in order that their marks self-select for people that are less intelligent/educated etc It is plausible that the scammer actually has excellent diction.

Ahh.... I've always wondered, without ever noticing that I was confused. Thank you.
Wait a moment. I can agree that it's a "common sense" guess that P(bad spelling | less education) >> P(bad spelling) but what that "technique" would imply is: P(finds text with bad spelling belivable | less education) >> P(finds text with bad spelling belivable) ...which is kinda more interesting. So to speak.
In general that's a published theory. On the other hand I don't think those spammers target LW. Anybody who can follow the argument of the importance of matching donations for MIRI is likely put of by the bad grammar.

This can be solved by only using it in aggregate (ie not releasing it in the final CSV)

I reckon you should include touchable voxels (3D holograms made in thin air):

it'd be great to have links for all these - so we know what we're looking at - also so we can go look up more info.

Re: quantum computing, I think it might be referring to this:

"Quantum computing breakthrough: Qubits made from standard silicon transistors"

If I were magically put in charge of distributing the next year's federal budget - I would still allocate resources to domestic welfare (supporting others that, through no fault of their own, have fallen on times of hardship), even though a larger portion went to foreign aid.

"whether they're worth the cost of keeping alive." and this highlights the differences in our views.

our point of difference is in this whole basis of using practical "worth" as The way of deciding whether or not a person should live/die.

I can get trying to minimise the birth of new people that are net-negative contributors to the world... but from my perspective, once they are born - it's worth putting some effort into supporting them.

Why? because it's not their fault they were born the way they are, and they should not be punished beca... (read more)

I've just made the unpleasant discovery that being downvoted to -4 makes it impossible to reply to those who replied to me (or to edit my comment). I'll state for the record that I disagree with that policy... and proceed to shut up.
I think this shows the underlying problem. You would also rather have all your tax money go to give a cute little puppy more food than it will ever need, simply because war is a terrible alternative. But that doesn't mean it's the best thing you can do with your money, or even anywhere near that standard. And neither is, one could argue, giving money to an obsolete person in a country where the cost of living is very high comparative to other countries in the world.

"sentient minds are remarkably easy to create"

I'm not sure I agree with this. It takes quite a lot of resources (time, energy etc) to create sentient minds at present... certainly to bring them to any reasonable state of maturity. After which, the people that put that time and effort in quite often get very attached to that new sentient mind - even if that mind is not a net-productive citizen.

The strategy that you choose to follow in how to divide up resources to sentient minds may be based on what you perceive to be their net-productivity... and... (read more)

[I've written two different responses to your comment. This one is more true to my state of mind when I wrote the comment you replied to.] Consider this: a man gets a woman pregnant, the man leaves. The woman carries the child to birth, hands it over to an adoption agency. Raising the child to maturity is now someone else's problem, but it has those parents' genes. I do not want this to be a viable strategy. If some people choose this strategy, that only makes it more important to stop letting them cheat.
It's a lot of resources from the perspective of a single person, but I was thinking at a slightly larger scale. By "easy", I mean that manageable groups of people can do it repeatedly and be confident of success. Really, the fact that sentient minds can be valued in terms of resources at all is sufficient for my argument. (That value can then be ignored when assessing productivity, as it's a sunk cost.) You seem to be looking in the wrong place with your "that people ought to earn every resource themselves" example - my opinion is that the people who have resources should not give those resources to people who won't make good use of them. That the people who lack resources will then have to earn them if they're to survive is an unavoidable consequence of that (and is my real goal here), but those aren't the people that I think ought to be changing things. As for what strategies people actually follow, I think most people do what I'm saying they should do, on an individual level. Most people protect their resources, and share them only with those who they expect to be able to return the favor. On the group level, though, people lose track of how much things actually cost, and support things like welfare that help people regardless of whether they're worth the cost of keeping alive.

I'd lay a high likelihood that you have quite a few more advantages than the kind of person I'm thinking of. You probably have your fair number of disadvantages too, but you've (through being lucky enough to have good health, intelligence, time and/or money for education and maybe good friends/family for support) been able to overcome those "on your own" (except for the aforementioned support)... which means you are categorically not the kind of person I'm thinking of when I am talking about people that need more support than others.

Some people n... (read more)

At least in some cases, yes. I don't agree with the "every sentient mind has value" view that's so common around here; sentient minds are remarkably easy to create, using the reproduction method. Dividing a share of resources to every human according to their needs rewards producing as many children of possible, and not caring if they're a net drain on resources. I would prefer to reward a K-selection strategy, rather than an r-selection strategy. The various advantages you list aren't simply a matter of chance; they're things I have because my parents earned the right to have children who live.

Yeah - I'm pretty sure defensive driving course in Australia are all hands-on, not just a safety lecture. I could be mistaken in that, but when I went looking, that is what I found - courses that get you actually driving in different conditions. Of course, there could also be dud courses out there in Aus too, and I happened not to find them because they don't tend to drift upwards in google searches... ;)

I'm willing to suspend judgement pending actual results. Demonstrate it does what you claim and I'll be very interested.

Note you probably already know this, but in case you don't: AFAIK the Halting problem has a mathematical proof... you will require the same to prove that your system solves it. ie just showing that it halts on many programs won't be enough (Turing machines do this too). You'll have to mathematically prove that it halts for all possible problems.

For some strange reason, your post wasn't picked up by my RSS feed and the little mail icon wasn't orange, Sorry to keep you waiting for a reply for so long. The Halting proof is for Turing machines. My model isn't a turing machine, it's supposed to be more powerful. Not to sound condescending, but this is why I'm posting it on a random internet forum and not sending it to a math professor or something. I don't think this is revolutionary, and I think there is very good possibility there is something wrong with my model. I'll tell you what convinced me that this is a hyper-computer though., and I'll go a ahead and say I'm not overly familiar with the Halting inasmuch as I don't understand the inner workings as well as I can parrot facts about it. I'll let more experienced people tell me if this breaks some sort of conditional. What my model essentially does is graft a time-travel formalism onto a something turing-complete. Since the turing -complete model of your choice is a special case of the model we just constructed, it's already turing complete. And the formalism itself already specifies that information can travel backwards through time, what has to be proven is that an algorithm can be constructed that solves the halting problem. With all of that, we can construct an algorithm based off of the following assumptions about time travel 1. Inconsistent timelines "don't exist"* 2. A timeline is inconsistent if it sends back different information than it receives 3. If more than one timeline is consistent, then all are equally realized. I have no idea if you read through the ramblings I linked, but the gist was that to simulate the model, at any given timestep the model receives all possible input from the future, organized into different branches. 'possible' is a important qualitfier, because the difference between the model being exponential in the size of the memory and exponential in an arbitrary quantity constrained to be smaller the size of t

Can you explain what you did?

From the github description: The github README is "Short summary, build instructions, examples".

I finished Couch to 5K today!

(The Zombies run version)

I've been working on this since February.

Where did you get the impression that by "it's far safer" that I meant "it's far safer... than driving"?

i am completely ignoring your anecdotes - they cannot be taken for actual data. I have friends that have been in extremely dangerous car accidents. I have a friend who was killed in a car crash. Anecdotes are a bad idea on this.

I'd be happy with real data on the actual base rates of this stuff, and yes, perhaps the bike lanes are not sufficient to overcome the danger of riding off the bike lane. But I don't think it's quite as bad as ... (read more)

Note, this is the same event as But we've noticed there are two names for it... so we have it twice

Note: this is the same meetup/camp as: We just noticed that there were two competing names for it... so now we have both, just in case.

The event is also on facebook here:

I have successfully gone for a run three times a week all month.

I think this depends strongly on whether the person you're explaining-to is initially open or closed to your ideas.

An example - if a new-earth creationist approached me to talk about their ideas on the creation of earth - I would not want them to spend time explaining their ideas until they showed me sufficient evidence to warrant my expenditure of time.

By comparison, most people on LessWrong I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and let them explain the idea, then go look up evidence to confirm whether it has a solid foundation.

Keeping in mind that tendency to auto-accept ideas told to us...

It does (#justonedatapoint)

curious: how would this help?

They were prominent then too (I was there then too) :)

Yes, that is a plausible pathological case. But... some people definitely have specific diet-related triggers (sulfates is a common one) and if you have those... it's worth finding that out.

If you're worried about false-positives - then go see a dietician to do it however the proper way is to make sure.

Seafood is only one possibility. If you're going to try diet-related control, you'd be better off using an elimination diet (google the details) - where you basically cut down to some very bland things, and see if the effect stops... then start adding things back one at a time until one thing triggers it (and then don't eat that thing)... continue until you know all your triggers.

In your case - if you cut down to the bland diet and stay that way for a week, and you're still getting migraines - then it wasn't your diet.

I've heard about the elimination diet a few times now, and I think I'll get off my ass and do it. I would've thought though that I'd need to give it a bit longer than a week. Well, let's see how it goes. And thanks for the advice, it's definitely welcome.
I have seen people try this method and have the strong suspicion that in some cases, the effect stopped due to the placebo effect, because the person thought that food had something to do with it. Then the effect returned together with various foods based on random chance, and the person became forever convinced that that particular food was bad for them.

HPMOR wrap-party being a good example of an exception where it worked fairly well... but I'd be curious about your experience with examples that didn't work.

Load More