All of TraderJoe's Comments + Replies

This is quite far down the page, even though I posted it a few hours ago. Is that an intended effect of the upvoting/downvoting system? (it may well be - I don't understand how the algorithm assigns comment rankings)

0Oscar_Cunningham9y
Just below and to the right of the post there's a choice of which algorithm to use for sorting comments. I don't remember what the default is, but I do know that at least some of them sort by votes (possibly with other factors). I normally use the sorting "Old" (i.e. oldest first) and then your comment is near thhe bottom of the page since so many were posted before it.
0Douglas_Knight9y
The algorithm is a complicated mix of recency and score, but on an open thread that only lasts a week, recency is fairly uniform, so it's pretty much just score.

I have been reviewing FUE hair transplants, and I would like LWers' opinion. I'm actually surprised this isn't covered, as it seems relevant to many users.

As far as I can tell, the downsides are:

  • Mild scarring on the back of the head
  • Doesn’t prevent continued hair loss, so if you get e.g. a bald spot filled in, then you will in a few years have a spot of hair in an oasis
  • Cost
  • Mild pain/hassle in the initial weeks.
  • Possibility of finding a dodgy surgeon

The scarring is basically covered if you have a few two days’ hair growth there and I am fine with tha... (read more)

0TraderJoe9y
This is quite far down the page, even though I posted it a few hours ago. Is that an intended effect of the upvoting/downvoting system? (it may well be - I don't understand how the algorithm assigns comment rankings)
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
2Viliam_Bur9y
Technically it wouldn't matter, but of course by posting in a fresh Open Thread you get better visibility. (So sometimes it is strategic to wait even if the old Open Thread is still "valid", but already full of comments.) And you are right about the time zones; although there is no hard rule when exactly the threads appear, "one day later" is a good rule of thumb.
2Oscar_Cunningham9y
It's not automated, so the new one will be posted whenever someone gets around to it, which they normally do pretty quickly. You'll get more people looking at your post if you put it at the beginning of a new open thread.

Why would you need any g to contribute money?

1ESRogs10y
I believe that was meant to be: those with 1 in 1000 g or below...

Does anyone know how to get offended? I have never experienced the emotion and am interested to know what it feels like.

-4epigeios10y
* Imagine that something is true. * Observe that it is not true. * Keep imagining it is true. * Listen to someone state that it is not true. * Let the conflict between those two things continue to build up and manifest as a negative emotion directed at the person who stated that it is not true. An example of imagining that something is true is having the idea that things ought to be a certain way, such as thinking that people ought to be not racist. Observe that people are racist. Continue to think that people ought to be not racist. Hear someone be racist. The difference between taking offense and being angry is that taking offense is when anger is directed at a concept. It's okay to be angry at a racist for doing racist things, but it's a bad idea to be angry at the concept of racism.
5someonewrongonthenet10y
As far as I can tell, it's just a subset of anger, and feels identical emotionally. The distinction is that in offence, the reason for the anger is roused from what the word or action implies about the state of mind of the offender. In most other forms of anger, the reason for the anger is roused by the direct results of the actions. For example - if someone physically injured me or another human being or stole valuable, I would be angry, but not the offended kind of angry. The anger is because of the injury itself, and because of the loss of the stolen object. However - if someone spat in my face, called me a liar, or claimed that some individual deserved to die, I would be offended. I don't care about the spit on my face itself, nor do I care that the word-sounds caused vibrations in the air. The reason I am offended (angry) is because the action has indicated something about the other person's mental state which implies that they might do something bad in the future. The physical strike is an interesting gray area. If someone injures me, I'll be angry. But if someone slaps me during an argument, I'd be offended - the slap doesn't really bother me, but the intention behind the slap does hurt and signals future aggression. Same with stolen objects - I would be offended if someone I knew stole my silverware but it's not because I've got one less spoon. I'd just be plain angry if they stole my laptop though, primarily because I need my laptop. In both cases, the offending party has done something which would mark them as an "enemy". In one case, the action cause direct harm to me. In the other case, the action indicated that they might cause direct harm to me at some point in the future. In the ancestral environment, anger would illicit the necessary behaviors in both cases. Edit: Now that I think of it, this post might be better titled "Don't get angry". There is nothing particularly different between being offended and being angry, with regards to the extent
2OrphanWilde10y
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/raid-of-the-day [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/raid-of-the-day] <- Try these. The righteous anger/indignation you may or may not experience is, AFAIK, the same thing, it's just labeled differently.
2TheOtherDave10y
When I want to invoke it for performance reasons, I start by building up a strong sense of entitlement. "I am more important than everyone else, I am special, I am right, I deserve deference, I deserve special treatment, I deserve satisfaction at the expense of others," that sort of thing. Then I look at the things in my environment that violate that sense of entitlement. Offense (or outrage, if I make the differential high enough) follows naturally for me.

Can you add a NSFW disclaimer?

-2MugaSofer10y
IIRC, acupuncture has some limited use, probably as a combination of placebo and endorfin release. Unless you knew about those, the evidence would suggest you were on to something.
7Qiaochu_Yuan10y
Wikipedia informs me that evidence-based medicine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine] is a movement in the health care community that really only got underways in the 90s. I am not sure I want to know what the health care community was doing before the 90s. I'm not talking about alternative medicine, I'm talking about whatever mainstream medicine was and is doing that doesn't fall under this label.

"The graveyards are full of indispensable men"

  • De Gaulle.

I interpret the quote as meaning somewhat that people kid themselves about how irreplaceable they are.

1Swimmer96310y
The graveyards are full of everyone who has ever lived up until ~1850 (and a lot of people born after that).

"The graveyards are full of indispensable men" - De Gaulle.

History is full of collapsed empires, failed projects and lost battles. The loss of an indispensable person does not itself prove they were not indispensable. It may just mean you're screwed.

Thanks for the advance notice: I only check LW every few days and this will, uncaring universe willing, be my first meetup.

And many people who have tried to assassinate Kennedys...

I like this post. Can you think of any pre-20th century philosophers whose works you still hold to be valid/useful today? [or from that list, any pre-21st century...]

9katydee10y
I'm not Luke, and I'm not even sure this is what he would count as philosophy, but the Stoics were right about an awful lot of practical things to help you live a better life, and research now seems to be indicating that their techniques do in fact work.

Hume turns out to have been right about an awful lot, but still... why read Hume when you can read contemporary works of science and philosophy there are clearer, more precise, and more correct? (If you're reading Hume for his lovely prose, I suppose that's a different matter.)

Speaking of Hume, the Nov. 30th episode of Philosophy Bites was kind of amusing. A bunch of philosophers, including famous ones, gave their answers to "Who's your favorite philosopher?" IIRC, when giving their reasons for liking their favorite philosopher, almost nobody sai... (read more)

Is there any way we could get more notification for these? I could probably have made this, but didn't see this in time.

0philh10y
I'll try to post them at least a week in advance in future, unless someone's already done so. It looks like every-other-week is the schedule from now on, I'm currently checking with the google group to see whether anything was decided that I should know about before publishing.

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
2ChristianKl10y
The slippery slope argument is a classic fallacy. Anna Salamon is the executive director of CFAR. Not trusting her but trusting LessWrong is indeed crazy. Karma points are not the primary way to decide whether to trust someone.

The most appropriate metric is the one which causes the smallest number of people to have to calculate their answer into another unit of measurement. If LW is mostly American, that may well be imperial.

On the other hand, if you are only half-a-rationalist, you can easily do worse with more knowledge. I recall a lovely experiment which showed that politically opinionated students with more knowledge of the issues reacted less to incongruent evidence, because they had more ammunition with which to counter-argue only incongruent evidence.

What exactly is the problem with this? The more knowledge I have, the smaller a weighting I place on any new piece of data.

-1empleat2y
Seems so: https://aeon.co/essays/why-humans-find-it-so-hard-to-let-go-of-false-beliefs [https://aeon.co/essays/why-humans-find-it-so-hard-to-let-go-of-false-beliefs] I Am probably so rational, because I have ASD, people with ASD don't include emotions into their reasoning: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532317/#:~:text=In%20typical%20individuals%2C%20alexithymia%20was,fear%2C%20disgust%2C%20and%20anger [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532317/#:~:text=In%20typical%20individuals%2C%20alexithymia%20was,fear%2C%20disgust%2C%20and%20anger.]. And I Am great in logic!!! I have aphantasia - meaning no imagination. Even if I understand some logic perfectly - I couldn't make you an exercise for it! And I can't give any examples almost, as next to 0 imagination! That's also maybe why I Am so rational: https://iai.tv/articles/why-humans-are-the-most-irrational-animals-auid-1239&utm_source=reddit& [https://iai.tv/articles/why-humans-are-the-most-irrational-animals-auid-1239&utm_source=reddit&_auid=2020]_auid=2020 But I Am somehow very creative - because ADHD? And I have overexcitabilities and I Am very emotional & sensitive person! Emotions are tied to creativity! I get excited easily, but also bored easily! Also I have bad memory, so I forget things and have to constantly reinvent them and revise them from 0. But I Am very logical-critical-rational! This is so interesting I saw some guy, which has it same and his almost exactly the way I Am except ASD and ADHD! So interesting!  I also didn't know anything until my 21 and just played games, then I read like 1 million articles in a year about "Free Will". I always try yo take everything from 0 and I have ADHD so I see it from all perspectives. I also revise my views, even if I Am wrong, I will learn so much from that! Being wrong is as important for learning as being right! So you see something doesn't work and get information from that! Who tries to be only right, doesn't really learn why and some

In countries that are lawful and just, it is the privilege and responsibility of a citizen to pay their low taxes. That said, a good billionaire wouldn't ask to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Since when is this a traditional part of capitalism? Apart from the definitional problems with "a good billionaire", who is it who says that a billionaire who pays 40m in tax and wants to pay less is somehow immoral?

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
-3Dallas10y
Boltzmann brain scenarios will occur regardless of any given doomsday.

Next year the survey should include an option to explain why your IQ is actually higher than was measured.

3Kindly10y
I guess this year we can assume that everybody had such an explanation, and imagine the best possible version of it, sight unseen.
4Divide10y
I dunno, on my test it came up higher than expected (and higher than the result of a pro test they gave me in primary school once).
0gwern10y
College students would be flaky and unreliable, and you'd want at least 2 for error-checking. You get what you pay for.
0gwern10y
Transcripts are fairly expensive; patio11 pays for transcripts to be made for his podcasts (a big factor in why those submissions do well on Hacker News), but IIRC the quoted figure is north of $100. So you would pay... but would you pay enough?

Surely this makes it very tough for a non-trolling user to figure out what was wrong with his post? Few people are going to explain it to him. You need to be familiar with LW jargon before you can expect to write a technical comment and not be downvoted for it, so this would very easily deter a lot of new users. "These guys all downvoted my post and nobody will explain it to me. Jerks. I'll stick to rationalwiki."

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

I took the survey before. It. Was. Cool!

Taken it. Suggestion [if it's possible to change] - we should add the option to unanswer an answered question. Right now you can change your answer from A to B, but not from A to non-A and non-B.

0[anonymous]10y
I think that, with some browsers at least, there's no way to do that (short of reloading the page and re-answering the questions). The ‘right’ thing to do would be to add a “None of the above / Prefer not to answer” option to all questions.

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
2John_Maxwell10y
The FiveThirtyEight blog [http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/] has a state-by-state return-on-investment index in the sidebar.

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Sure, but how often do you see each of the following sentences in some kind of logic discussion: 2+2=3 2+2=4 2+2=5 2+2=6 2+2=7

I have seen the first and third from time to time, the second more frequently than any other, and virtually never see 2+2 = n for n > 5. Not all statements are shown with equal frequency. My guess is that the percentage of the time when "2+2 = x" is written in contexts where the statement is for a true/false logic proposition rather than an equation x = 4 is more common than all other values put together.

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0Kindly10y
The transliteration does, but the actual Arabic means "V'z Sebz Nzrevpn". So in fact TraderJoe's prediction of 0.5 was a simple average over the two statements given, and everyone else giving a prediction failed to take into account that the answer could be neither "true" nor "false".
0TheOtherDave10y
Not according to google translate. Incidentally, that string is particularly easy to uncypher by inspection.

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0CCC10y
This is a perfect situation for a poll. How probable is it that TraderJoe's statement, in the parent comment, is true? [pollid:116]
2chaosmosis10y
Ratio of true statements to false ones: low. Probability TraderJoe wants to make TheOtherDave look foolish: moderate, slightly on the higher end. Ratio of the probability that giving an obviously false statement an answer of relatively high probability would make TheOtherDave look foolish to the probability that giving an obviously true statement a relatively low probability would make TheOtherDave look foolish: moderately high. Probability that the statement is neither true nor false: low. Conclusion: أنا من (أمريك is most likely false.
2TheOtherDave10y
I assume you mean without looking it up. My answer is roughly the same as TimS's... it mostly depends on "Would TraderJoe pick a true statement in this context or a false one?" Which in turn mostly depends on "Would a randomly selected LWer pick a true statement in this context or a false one?" since I don't know much about you as a distinct individual. I seem to have a prior probability somewhat above 50% for "true", though thinking about it I'm not sure why exactly that is. Looking it up, it amuses me to discover that I'm still not sure if it's true.
0TimS10y
It seems like my guess should be based on how likely I think it is that your are trying to trick me in some sense. I assume you didn't pick a sentence at random.
0TraderJoe10y
[comment deleted]

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0Morendil10y
Yup. Similarly you don't assign 50% to the proposition "X will change", where X is a relatively long-lasting feature of the world around you - long-lasting enough to have been noticed as such in the first place and given rise to the hypothesis that it will change. (In the Le Pen prediction, the important word is "cease", not "Le Pen" or "election".) ETA: what I'm getting at is that nobody gives a damn about the class of question "yes/no question which I have no idea about". The subthread about these questions is a red herring. When a question comes up about "world events", you have some idea of the odds for change vs status quo based on the general category of things that the question is about. For instance many GJP questions are of the form "Will Prime Minister of Country X resign or otherwise vacate that position within the next six months?". Even if you are not familiar with the politics of Country X, you have some grounds for thinking that the "No" side of the question is more likely than the "Yes" side - for having an overall status quo bias on this type of question.
2TheOtherDave10y
Well, yes. But ought I believe that a yes/no question I have no idea about is as likely as its negation to have been asked? (Especially if it's being asked implicitly by a situation, rather than explicitly by a human?)
1FAWS10y
That's only reasonable if some agent is trying to maximize the information content of your answer. The vast majority of possible statements of a given length are false.

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[comment deleted]

  1. How much you think your opinion will turn out to coincide with mine - hard to define. If your respective answers are 10, 40, 90, how much did we agree? I'll guess that the sum of the three differences between my answers and yours is around sixty percentage points [out of 300 possible].

I often add "I believe" to sentences to clarify that I am not certain.

"Did you feed the dog?" "Yes"

and

"Did you feed the dog?" "I believe so"

have different meanings to me. I parse the first as "I am highly confident that I fed the dog" and the second as "I am unable to remember for sure whether I fed the dog, but I am >50% confident I did so."

2graviton10y
It always seems to me that any little disclaimer about my degree of certainty seems to disproportionately skew the way others interpret my statements. For instance, if I'm 90% sure of something, and carefully state it in a way that illustrates my level of confidence (as distinct from 100%), people seem to react as if I'm substantially less than 90% confident. In other words, any acknowledgement of less-than-100%-confidence seems to be interpreted as not-very-confident-at-all.

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

This doesn't quite answer the question. I would be very happy if my place of work were closed and I could do fun things for two weeks. My objection to working isn't that work is unpleasant; it's that there's a high opportunity cost [all the fun people I could hang out with, the great books I could read, etc]. A better question is "imagine you are asked for your employer to take part in an experiment where you instead have your brain turned off. Your body ages by eight hours, but your brain experiences it as "you step into the office, then step out".

It retains the silliness but solves the opportunity cost problem.

2Viliam_Bur10y
You are right about the opportunity costs. The work is actually not bad -- it's the idea of all the things I could have done in the same time that's driving me crazy. Your question is better (although it does not contain learning during the job, which is important too).

[comment deleted]

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
3atorm10y
A pharmacist might be a better bet.
5gwern10y
Doctors don't take courses in modafinil, or anything, so I'm not sure what you expect them to base their advice on besides the FDA prescribing guides like http://www.erowid.org/smarts/modafinil/modafinil_provigil_prescribing_info1.pdf [http://www.erowid.org/smarts/modafinil/modafinil_provigil_prescribing_info1.pdf]

What might convince me that Modafinil is a bad thing would be if a lot of people actively disliked the time they spent working. I personally assume most people roughly like or are neutral towards their jobs and mainly want to work shorter hours because it gives them more time for things outside of work, but I'm almost certainly generalizing from the example of me. If Yvain had made this argument I would understand more about where he was coming from and why.

3Viliam_Bur10y
In some professions saying that you "love you work" is a signal of a good employee. So I would expect some dishonesty in self-reporting. How could we ask the question to reduce this signalling? I imagine only silly questions like this: Imagine that for some external reasons your workplace must be closed for two weeks. During those two weeks you will receive your normal salary, and those two weeks will not be taken from your holidays. How does this message make you feel? a) awesome! b) mildly happy c) neutral d) mildly sad e) depressed On the second thought, is this question really silly, or does it show our true preferences? And the silliness is merely a reflection of dissonance between our professed values and real values.

Although I'm unsure of the etiquette of posting about personal blogs on other sites, I was also disappointed with the blog post in question. It was the first time that Yvain wrote something I disagreed with after reading his post in full and digesting in. I've often disagreed with him before reading it, but he usually persuades me.

This post seemed to rely on the principle that having more spare time is a positional good, with which I disagree strongly. Essentially, giving everyone another four hours of awake, productive time, is the same as extending your... (read more)

3TraderJoe10y
[comment deleted]
7TraderJoe10y
What might convince me that Modafinil is a bad thing would be if a lot of people actively disliked the time they spent working. I personally assume most people roughly like or are neutral towards their jobs and mainly want to work shorter hours because it gives them more time for things outside of work, but I'm almost certainly generalizing from the example of me. If Yvain had made this argument I would understand more about where he was coming from and why.
Load More