You can know why the analogy holds without having enough detail to compute with it. Likewise you could have a picture that is truly part of you, but where not all of it is, so that you only get halfway there.
It is pretty easy to understand why the Doppler effect happens (at least, if you happen to be exactly my past self). You can easily have the ability to independently come up with the explanation without being able to derive the formula.
Printing with my printers sucks - but e.g. my university has a nice upload service where you upload documents to a website and scan a card at one of multiple printers and can print; and those have always worked like a charm for me. So why is printing sometimes... easy?
He's going for in the sexy way, not not in the sexy way (perhaps he had a typo when you read it).
A well known example is the idea of using geostationary orbits for communication satellites popularized by Arthur C. Clarke (which he said was possibly subconsciously influenced by George O. Smith's story in the first Venus Equilateral)
Interesting. To me frosting feels almost physically painful to eat more than a small amount of, and I have no memories of any consequences from eating frosting (besides the immediate "ow")
It really does seem harder to mass produce! I don't think it's an easy to factory farm bears as cows, considering that you have to feed them meat, so you'll at best get an ordinary/mild commercial success? So the upside to me seems like something within the realm of what is occasionally not already exploited.
An interesting comparison would be to see if other substitute animal fats taste as good?
Also I think rationalists might be selected for having weirder tastes?
I haven't gotten bad physical consequences from eating too much sugar, but also I wouldn't know if I do because e.g. frosting is hard to stand for me in a visceral way, just due to the sweetness, and eating too much lesser-sweet stuff still wakes me "sweet tired". But I don't notice an impact on e.g. my digestion or my energy (besides that of, like, eating any meal).
From what you said, it sounded like there is an impact from eating too much sugar? What is it?
You don't have to believe the coherence arguments. Perhaps the best approach is to build something that isn't (at least, isn't explicitly/directly) an expected utility maximizer. Then the challenge is to come up with a way to build a thing that does stuff you want without even having that bit of foundation. This seems likely harder than the world where the best approach is a clever trick that fixes it for expected utility maximizers.
My use of "beg the question", as opposed to the official way, is the objectively superior use, and I will die on this hill:
The way I think about it is it's based on what I care about. I am in fact unwilling to do certain things to save the life of someone who is threatening suicide and blaming me, because I care more about myself, and I am fundamentally okay with caring about myself in that way. If, say, my best friend made some stupid mistake that put her at risk of great harm, I would be doing the heroic responsibility thing because I care a lot about the outcome.
It's fine to care about yourself! The principle of "I am obligated not to harm you, but not obligated to help you" is a fine one. The point of heroic responsibility is to see what I could do in cases where I do want to go all out to achieve some outcome.